Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Disability Living Allowance

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the target period within which applicants for disability living allowance should receive a decision; and what target he has set for responding to representations from hon. Members on behalf of constituents in respect of applications for disability living allowance.

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new steps he is taking to ensure that the delays in responding to applications for disability living allowance are eliminated.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Current targets are that 60 per cent. of applicants for disability living allowance should receive a decision within 30 days and 95 per cent. should do so within 55 days. However, the latter target is under review. The Benefits Agency has also undertaken to reply to correspondence from hon. Members within an average of 20 days.
I meet the chief executive of the Benefits Agency regularly to review progress. As I have already advised the

House, the level of work outstanding on disability living allowance has been reduced to normal levels–60 per cent. of new claims are being cleared within 30 days and older cases are being targeted.

Mr. Michael: I have had a rash of letters from the head of the Benefits Agency since I tabled this question, but none met the 20-day target—most of them were replies to letters that had been hanging around on his desk for three months or more. Does the Minister recognise that by the time constituents go to their Member of Parliament they have often been trying to get sense out of the system in person, by letter and by telephone for a year or more? Does he also recognise that these are some of the most vulnerable people in our society? Whom does he want us to blame—the head of the Benefits Agency, for running a sloppy and incompetent administration? Or should we not blame the Secretary of State and seek his resignation?

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman was present for previous exchanges on the matter, he will know how much the Government and the agency regret the backlog that was caused by the early surge of claims for disability living allowance. I am confident that it is now under control and that targets will be met in future. As for letters, the agency gave priority to the clearance of claims. It is now writing to Members of Parliament with an up-to-date report on the way in which the claim have been decided.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware of the widespread anxiety about the quality of decision making by the Benefits Agency on disability living allowance? If the quality of decision making is bad, it will store up a great deal more trouble and anxiety for the vulnerable people who are affected. Will the Minister give two assurances? First, will he thoroughly investigate every allegation in The Sunday Times article yesterday and report to the House? Secondly, will he give a belated Valentine to the people affected and say that no one will lose out as a result of knock-on effects or any other repercussion caused by the disgraceful circus of disorganisation?

Mr. Scott: No one will lose money, because the payment of any benefit that is awarded will be backdated


to the time of the claim. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the knock-on effects?"] As for other backlogs, outstanding letters from Members of Parliament should be cleared by the end of February. I believe that from then on we shall be in a steady state.

Mr. Alan Howarth: In considering the administrative practicalities of providing support for disabled people rapidly, sensitively and cost-effectively, as I know is his wish, will my right hon. Friend also look sympathetically at the case for providing cash rather than services to certain severely disabled people who would rather organise their own personal assistance? Is there any reason why the Government should not give a fair wind to the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)?

Mr. Scott: On the latter point, it will rest with local authorities from April this year to provide packages of community care. Local authorities are not enabled to pay cash, but they will be able to provide services. It is the intention of colleagues in the Department of Health that disabled people should be closely involved with the development of those packages. As the House already knows, I intend to legislate in the near future for a successor body to the independent living fund.

Mr. Spring: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that more than 200,000 people who were not benefiting previously have benefited from the introduction of the new disability living allowance? Is that not striking proof positive that the Government are mindful of the needs of the disabled and of helping constructively in that respect?

Mr. Scott: I well understand my hon. Friend's remarks and I am grateful to him for his support. The concept and, increasingly, the delivery of DLA has been spectacularly successful. Hundreds of thousands of people have benefited from it and the self-assessment system is working extremely well—better than any of the previous arrangements. The staff of the agency are to be congratulated on their achievement.

Mr. Frank Field: For those constituents who come to our surgeries because they are gaining no money from the benefits, could the Minister give us the timetable during which their claims will be met and paid?

Mr. Scott: I have already told the House what will happen to new claims, which will be met within targets. The Benefits Agency intends to ensure that all claims received up to December last year will be handled by April this year.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which he responded to the embarrassement of riches in terms of the number of applicants for disability living allowance? Is it not worth pointing out that since 1979 the Government have increased spending on the long-term sick and disabled by 170 per cent?

Mr. Scott: That is true, and DLA will further increase that figure. About 370,000 awards are being made under DLA, which is a great achievement.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept, as he must on the evidence, that the DLA experience has been a disaster for the many applicants left in limbo and also for the benefits system? The news that many people, some with no money coming in from a benefit source, will have to wait until

April will add to the distress. Does the right hon. Gentleman defend the distinction made by the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, who argues that no DLA file has been lost, although some are difficult to find? Has he seen the reports about a DLA filing system which does not fit the files and is 40 miles from the officers who take the decisions? How on earth could something like that arise?

Mr. Scott: The remote filing system at Nelson serves not only DLA but a considerable number of other benefits and it seems sensible to keep those files at a central point. I acknowledge that there were delays, which caused considerable distress to a large number of customers during the early days of the benefit. I have apologised to the House for that, and I have acknowledged that the surge in claims at the launch of the benefit caused the problem. We are largely through that, and shall be able to meet targets from now on.

Pensions

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average value of an occupational pension (a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that between 1979 and 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, it is estimated that the average value of occupational pensions in payment rose from £34 per week to £51.80 per week at 1988 prices—this represents an increase of about 52 per cent.

Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that about 70 per cent. of recently retired people obtain occupational pensions, and that that trend has been rising steadily throughout the past decade? Can she confirm that it remains Government policy to encourage as many people as possible to follow that means of provision?

Miss Widdecombe: Yes, I have pleasure in confirming that my hon. Friend's figures are correct. They exclude the 5 million people who now provide for themselves through personal pensions, which is another sign of the Government's commitment to a proper combination of private and public provision for retirement income.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Is the Minister aware that retired local government officers in Scotland on average receive only £2,014 per annum from occupational pensions? Does she accept that that is below the figure bandied about as the sort of pension paid to retired local government officers? Does that not show that, before the Government start to tamper with the state pension, they should have regard to the fact that many occupational pensions do not pay that much money to their pensioners?

Miss Widdecombe: I was pointing out that occupational pensions pay an increasing amount to their pensioners. The figures are somewhat depressed if one includes in them those who retired when occupational pensions were in their infancy. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly capable of understanding what an average is, however, and that if there is an average pension, some people will receive far more than that and some will get somewhat less.

Mrs. Chaplin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the occupational pensions industry is increasingly equalising the pension age at 65 and that it would be helpful from its point of view if we equalised the state retirement age at 65 as well? I declare an interest in that I fully intend to work until the age of 65 at least.

Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend intends to work until she is 65 and I am sure that she will represent her constituents well throughout that time. The Government are entirely committed to equalising the state pension age and our equalisation proposals were set out in a consultation document. Those four options are still under consideration.

Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy on maintaining the value of the basic retirement pension in real terms.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Since 1979, we have more than fulfilled our pledge to maintain the real value of the basic state pension.

Mr. Burden: The Secretary of State will recall that since the Government scrapped the link with earnings, single pensioners and married couples are, respectively, about £17–65 and £28 per week worse off. My city of Birmingham has more than 103,000 pensioners living in poverty who are forced to choose between having a decent diet and meeting the cost of rising fuel bills. Some 39 per cent. of them have no central heating and 45 per cent. have no loft insulation. Can the Secretary of State or the Government really be proud of their record of cutting the value of the state pension?

Mr. Lilley: Because we have focused additional resources on the most needy, and because we have encouraged people to make increased provision over and above their basic state pension, the average income of pensioners has risen more every year under this Government than under the five years of the previous Labour Government. So the answer is yes, we are proud of our record and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of his.

Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend condemn a policy that seeks to means-test the state pension as well as to discourage private provision? Is he aware that such a policy is now an official policy of the Labour party?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is a most extraordinary combination for any political party to adopt. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has specifically required his social justice commission to consider means-testing every universal benefit, including the basic pension. The Opposition are bound to follow such a policy because of their commitment to uprate that pension in line with earnings rather than prices. If they are to get extra resources for the most needy, they will have to means-test that pension and they know it.

Mr. Kirkwood: Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's assurances about the Government's intention regarding price protection for the basic state pension, does he acknowledge that the value of that pension depends to a large extent on fuel bills, food bills and public utility costs? If there is any truth in the rumour that the Treasury

is considering imposing value added tax on those items, will the right hon. Gentleman's Department ensure that those costs are made up through the social security system?

Mr. Lilley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not answer hypothetical questions, but he will be interested in the fact that if, since 1979, pensions had been raised in line with the pensioners index—the index which looks specifically at the goods and services that pensioners buy —rather than with the retail prices index, as we have done, pensioners would be receiving £6–65 per week less.

Pensions and Benefits (Choice)

Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for increasing the control and choice individuals have over their social security benefits and pensions.

Mr. Lilley: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed to enabling individuals to take greater control of all areas of their lives. Our policy on earnings-related pension provision is an excellent example of that commitment. Since 1988, 5 million people have taken out personal pensions, in addition to the 11 million people who are members of occupational pension schemes.

Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, since 1979, Conservative Governments have maintained their manifesto pledges to increase the basic pension in line with prices? Does he agree that that clearly demonstrates that Conservatives take their manifesto pledges seriously? Will he therefore take this opportunity to condemn the scaremongering carried out by Labour Members of Parliament who frequently suggest that we are about to break our pledges?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservative party has a reputation second to none for keeping its pledges. The uprating statement in the autumn demonstrated that we keep our pledges to pensioners and families, despite the scaremongering by Labour Members which preceded the outcome of that round. The Labour party has a lot to be ashamed of, as it broke its pledges to pensioners, cut the real value of pensions by 60 per cent., cut the Christmas bonus and robbed pensioners through inflation, which wiped out their savings.

Mr. Rooney: Does the Secretary of State realise that social security benefits constitute a two-way package whereby people contribute to the national insurance fund and then, in return, when the time comes, make their claims? In the 13 years of the Conservative Government there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the rate of contribution, but a withdrawal of the earnings-related element, sickness, unemployment and invalidity benefits, widows pensions and a range of other matters. How does the Secretary of State answer that charge?

Mr. Lilley: I do recognise that. As I said to the Select Committee on Social Security, I think that there is more strength in the contributory principle than many intellectuals believe. However, the hon. Gentleman had better have an argument with one such intellectual, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who, in his leadership statement, questioned whether the Labour party should maintain the distinction between national insurance benefits, which are available


only on the contribution test, and means-tested benefits. I said that I recognised that issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, but does the Labour party? And will the Labour party keep its long-standing commitment to that principle? It seems not.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of encouraging alternative provision, especially occupational pension provision, is the control of inflation, and that no occupational pension fund, however well funded, could cope with the inflation levels that occurred under the last Labour Government?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. We are uprating the pension by 3.6 per cent.—the rate of inflation prior to the uprating statement. The current, most recent, figure is 1·7 per cent.—half that level. That means that during the past 12 months inflation has risen less than it did on average for every month of all five years of the last Labour Government.

Mrs. Golding: Is the Minister aware that the only choice open to many pensioners is to live from hand to mouth? Why does he close his eyes to the desperate plight of those pensioners who are refused additional benefits because they receive tiny occupational pensions?

Mr. Lilley: We have been increasing the amount of resources channelled to pensioners with the lowest incomes. I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that in the uprating statement I was able to confirm that, on top of the increase in line with inflation, an extra £500 million would go, through the pensioners' premiums, to those on the lowest incomes.

Mr. Lidington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of Maxwell pensioners had no choice because membership of the pension scheme was a condition of their employment? Has my right hon. Friend a message for those office holders who are still haggling and delaying the unfreezing of the common investment fund, which should be paid to the benefit of those pensioners in need?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend powerfully makes his point, which I think will have much support on both sides of the House. We hope that Sir John Cuckney's request is successful and that matters will be resolved rapidly. We want those involved—liquidators, solicitors, executives or trustees—to bring about an early settlement and distribute the money so that the pensioners know that they can keep receiving their pensions.

Pensions

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he is considering to the state retirement pension.

Miss Widdecombe: We have more than maintained the value of the basic state pension since 1979.

Mr. Winnick: If the Government have really dropped the idea of means-testing state pensions—we do not know for certain whether they have—is not that only because of the outrage in the country when reports appeared last week, such as the one in The Sunday Times, which clearly showed that that was what the Government intended to do? What possible justification can there be for raising the

state pension age for women from 60 to 65? There is no justification: it was not in the Tory election manifesto, and it would be quite wrong to take that step.

Miss Widdecombe: On means-testing the basic state pension, the more intelligent Members on both sides will be aware that our manifesto promises are a somewhat better guide than press speculation. Furthermore, actions speak louder than words. As we promised in our manifesto to uprate pensions in line with prices and, despite immense public expenditure pressures, still went ahead and did that in the autumn statement, I find it amazing that the hon. Gentleman has not yet realised that we take our manifesto promises extremely seriously.

Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the greatest threat to pensioners, particularly those on small fixed incomes, is inflation and that in one year of the Labour party's term of office more than a quarter of the value of the basic pension was wiped out by inflation?

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed—for all the talk by the Opposition about how pensioners would be better off from an earnings link, the fact remains that when the Labour party practised it, not only did inflation wipe out the value of the increases but retirement income actually rose no more throughout the whole time of the Labour Government than it has risen every year during our period of office.

Independent Living Fund

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on future arrangements for the operation of the independent living fund.

Mr. Scott: Details of these arrangements will be announced shortly.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that, putting it mildly, there seems to be some confusion between his Department and the Department of Health about the arrangements from April this year? Can he clarify the suggestion that there will be a £500 per week maximum for payment from the independent living fund plus the value of local authoriity services to any one client and that clients requiring more than that amount will be expected to enter residential or nursing care permanently? If that is so, and if care capping is to be introduced by the Department, does he accept that that completely undermines the whole process of assessment being introduced in the community care changes with effect from April?

Mr. Scott: I shall certainly not be tempted into commenting on what I understand was a leaked document. As I have already made clear, the time will come when it will be right for me to announce to the House the full arrangements for the assessment and delivery of services, and any additional cash which may be necessary to support independent living for disabled people.

Mr. Bradley: When the Minister considers future arrangements, will he look again at the chaos governing relations between the disability living allowance and applications to the independent living fund? Although he said in an answer to me that the trustees have discretion to take applications from people who have applied for DLA,


in practice that discretion has been taken away by the trustees due to lack of funds and they are taking applications only from people in receipt of the old attendance allowance. That is a double blow to people waiting in desperation for their DLA to come through. They are doubly disadvantaged because they will not now be allowed to apply to the ILF. Surely the Government have some responsibility for this chaos and for ensuring that people are not doubly disadvantaged, first by having to wait for the DLA and then by losing out in terms of money from the ILF. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into future arrangements and ensure that people are compensated for the chaos that the Government have created?

Mr. Scott: No, I do not believe that that is so. I can only repeat that it would have been open to the trustees of the independent living fund to use their discretion to deem people to be in a position in which they would qualify for a payment from the ILF. We are, in any case, only about six weeks away from the beginning of the next financial year and the launch of the new independent living fund.

Transfer Payments

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to reduce the current levels of public expenditure on social security transfer payments.

Mr. Lilley: Our spending plans were set out in the autumn statement on 12 November 1992.

Mr. Banks: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is something deeply offensive about an evening-suited Prime Minister standing up at the Carlton club and addressing a bunch of well-fed Tories about the possibility of people on benefit having to work to get their benefit? Is not it outrageous that the poorest in our society, particularly unemployed people, should have in effect to pay twice over for the economic incompetence of this most stupid and recalcitrant Government? For the sake of better clarity, will the right hon. Gentleman now make it quite clear that under no circumstances will a Conservative Government means test the basic state retirement pension —yes or no?

Mr. Lilley: The world has been a better place since the hon. Member and his party improved their sartorial appearance. Under the previous Labour Government, whom the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) supported, one condition of receiving benefit was that one did nothing. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it is more sensible to look for ways of increasing the opportunities and requirements for people to do something—to improve their qualifications, to improve their contact with work and to contribute to the community. I think that that has widespread support. I made it quite clear that, unlike the social justice commission, which was established by the leader of the Labour party, we have no plans to means test the basic pension.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there are no questions about child benefit, because one of the ways of ensuring the welfare of children is for the Government to go on meeting their manifesto pledge, which was also set out in the autumn statement,

that child benefit will continue to recognise that when people have children their taxable capacity is reduced but their needs increased? The child cash allowance is more equitable than a child tax allowance.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend will know that we have no plans to abandon our manifesto pledge, which we upheld in the autumn statement.

Mobility Allowance

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people receive mobility allowance; and what was the figure in 1979.

Mr. Scott: In 1979 an estimated average of 95,000 people received mobility allowance. By 1992. the figure had risen to 660,000—almost a sevenfold increase. The introduction of disability living allowance has extended help with mobility costs even further.

Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those excellent figures. Will he confirm that they show an increase of 173 per cent. in real terms? Does he agree that that is acceptable progress, compared with the carping and jeering of Labour Members, whose party always failed to deliver the same level of support to sick and disabled people?

Mr. Scott: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I am particularly glad that, unlike the Labour party, we were able to introduce the disability living allowance in one go rather than having to phase it in over four years. I am delighted at the success of the new lower rates that have been introduced for DLA, which will make a significant improvement in the provision for mobility costs.

Mr. Wigley: May I press the Minister further on the reply that he gave earlier? Is he aware that since he last answered the question four weeks ago, hon. Members have received replies that had been waiting two or three months and that his assurances do not ring all that true? When will all those who are waiting have their cases cleared up, because it is they who are suffering from the Government's subterfuge in staging the introduction of the benefit?

Mr. Scott: I well understand the puzzlement of hon. Members who have received letters informing them of the outcome of claims that were settled weeks ago. It is perfectly understandable for the Benefits Agency to have concentrated on clearing those claims first and then bringing hon. Members up to date. Hon. Members' letters should be cleared by the end of this month. All new Members' letters will now be met within the 20-day target. Last year's claims will be cleared by April, and reviews and appeals should be cleared by May.

Mr. Milligan: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about the speeding up of the payment—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask Question 11.

Disability Living Allowance

Mr. Milligan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to improve the administration of the disability living allowance.

Mr. Scott: As I have said before, I take a close, personal interest in the administration of disability living allowance and meet the chief executive of the Benefits Agency regularly to review progress and discuss the improvements in hand. Apart from the steps already taken, the agency is reviewing the procedures for processing claims, setting up additional processing centres and increasing the training for staff.

Mr. Milligan: I welcome the additional announcements that my right hon. Friend has made for speeding up the payment of DLA, which will also be welcome to my constituents. Is he aware that dozens of my constituents have had their applications lost and have waited months without a reply, and that, according to The Sunday Times yesterday, more than 1,400 people are in that situation? Can he explain how that has happened and what measures he is taking to deal with the problem?

Mr. Scott: I say to my hon. Friend as I have said on a number of occasions, both from the Dispatch Box and in other forums, that we recognise that there was an unexpected surge of claims following the successful launch of the new benefit, and particularly as a result of the success of the advertising campaigns. There is no doubt that the agency went through a rough time early on in overcoming the problems. I am sure that it is now in a position to overcome them and that we can look forward to a much smoother path.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the Minister or the Benefits Agency now say how many DLA claimants died before their claims were processed and how long they waited in each case?

Mr. Scott: The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is the same as it was when he last asked it—no.

Residential and Nursing Care

Ms. Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations his Department has had from care providers regarding the costs of residential and nursing care.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alastair Burt): Several representations have been received recently, from both individuals and representative bodies.

Ms. Eagle: Is the Minister aware that the cost of a weekly place in a residential or nursing care home as calculated by his Department falls up to £50 short of the real cost? Can he comment on the fact that the Government's hope that the cost-care gap will be made up by charitable donations is pie in the sky, given both the scale and length of the recession and the fact that the National Lotteries Bill will reduce charitable income even more? What will the Government do to put payments for care places on a more secure footing?

Mr. Burt: I am sure that the hon. Lady will he pleased to know that expenditure on people in homes has increased enormously since 1979 from the £10 million spent then to £2.5 billion spent now. The last uprating increased the amount going into homes by over the rate of inflation—by about 3·6 per cent. The hon. Lady will

appreciate that no Government can make a commitment to pay all the fees up to the full limit because that would lead to the abuse that there was before.
The amount of money spent by the Government on people receiving benefits in homes will stay at the level of commitment that we have now. The new system of community care will also ensure that that amount of money is best spent on domiciliary care, the independent sector or local authority care. I am sure that local authorities will administer the new system with the care with which it has been administered up to now.

Mr. Willetts: Is my hon. Friend aware that the main concern among private providers of residential accommodation in nursing homes is the risk of a vendetta by left-wing local authorities from 1 April, who, for purely ideological reasons, will refuse to finance the cost of accommodation in such homes?

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend will be aware that matters relating to the registration of homes are the responsibility more of the Department of Health than of this Department, but I am aware of the concerns already expressed to Departments about such matters. The quality of care delivered to the elderly has been immeasurably increased over the past decade partly because of the quality of care in the independent sector, and the way in which that has increased and encouraged the delivery of quality care in the local authority sector. The quality of care given to elderly people by all providers is substantially better than it was a decade or 20 years ago.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that the Government have forced local authorities to get rid of their beds? The Government have put enormous pressure on people to go into private homes. There is a real fear that after 1 April many of the most damaged people will not be able to pay for their accommodation in the private sector because of the Government's actions and the lack of money available to local authorities. How does the Minister satisfy those people? There are many who are terrified of what will happen to their elderly, who in many instances are mentally handicapped.

Mr. Burt: Substantial resources have been placed into the community care system to cover situations such as those to which the hon. Lady has drawn attention. Before a new system comes into place, there are always concerns about what might happen on the actual day. We know that the amount of money put in and the degree of care exercised by local authorities will ensure, for the first time, that proper consideration is given to individual cases and all cases. This approach will ensure also that the available money is best spent to the benefit of everyone. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want to return to a system where limited resources were poorly spent. I am convinced that the amount of money and the degree of care that will he exercised will ensure the success of the community care policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Citizens Charter

Mr. Hain: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been achieved in implementing the citizens charter.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): We have made good progress in implementing the charter. More than 90 per cent. of our initial commitments have been met or are in hand.

Mr. Hain: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy confirm that if the Government proceed with their plans to privatise Parcelforce and the Royal Mail sections of the Post Office, none of the quality of service, entitlements and obligations set out in the citizens charter will apply? Or was that the right hon. Gentleman's agenda all along?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in these matters, knows that no final decisions have been made. As in other private utilities, there is the regulator. The charter covers those utilities.

Ms. Mowlam: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that both he and the Prime Minister have emphasised, in relation to charters, the importance of prompt replies to correspondence? Goals have been set for British Telecom and British Gas, for example. What are the goals for the right hon. Gentleman's unit? I wrote on behalf of someone in Swanage, Dorset, and it took him two months to reply.

Mr. Waldegrave: I apologise for that—it was inadequate service. All Departments of Stale have published targets for answering their letters, and we should meet them.

Market Testing and Competitive Tendering

Mr. Congdon: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he uses to assess the benefits of market testing and compulsory competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: In market testing, Departments assess savings in costs; and improvements in quality, such as reliability and timeliness. They monitor how these benefits are delivered in practice.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for compulsory competitive tendering. The benefits of CCT are being assessed through a continuing programme of research commissioned by his Department.

Mr. Congdon: I welcome that answer. Given the success of the competitive tendering programme, especially in local government, will my right hon. Friend ensure that market testing in central Government delivers the savings that we desire?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, I can confirm that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently announced what amounted to the saving of two regiments, he was able partly to attribute that to the savings that he has made in his Department as a result of market testing. That is a good example of market testing leading to proper savings.

Mr. Madden: What action are the Government taking to safeguard the confidence of taxpayers' records when sections of the Inland Revenue are privatised?

Mr. Waldegrave: Any privatisation in that Department or any other in which confidentiality is involved would need contracts to cover that. Major state secrets in the
defence industry have been possessed by the private sector for generations, and there is no essential difference elsewhere.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in regretting the insensitivity of Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, which has bought six Mercedes tipper trucks at a time when many jobs are on the line at Leyland Daf, which produces extremely good—

Madam Speaker: Order. The Chancellor of the Duchy is not responsible for a local authority's purchasing policy.

Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that that is the correct judgment, Madam Speaker, as always.
I have to say that there are many things about Lancashire county council that my hon. Friend and I find surprising, perhaps not least the one that she has mentioned.

Compensation

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many charters contain provisions for compensation to be paid to members of the public.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): All charters contain information about what to do if things go wrong. Six charters contain provision for financial compensation. Those include the British Rail passengers charter and London Underground customers charter.

Mr. Bayley: Will the Minister give a firm guarantee that all the provisions of the BR passengers charter will apply to private sector train operators if the Government go ahead with privatisation, or will the private sector be let off the hook?

Mr. Jackson: The charter will apply to everyone who operates a service. Meanwhile, it applies to BR. The House should know that it is not simply a question of compensation for individuals, which the hon. Gentleman may have had in mind; there is a provision under which fares are reduced in a particular area if the service to it is performing below standard.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many citizens charters are now in place; how many more are expected; when these are expected; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Robert Jackson: We have published 30 charters, including the Ulsterbus charter launched today. We plan to publish at least 10 more in 1993. Those charters empower the consumers of public services, better enabling them to insist on good quality services and proper redress where things go wrong.

Mr. Greenway: Has my hon. Friend seen the interesting Fabian Society pamphlet by Margaret Hodge, the former Labour leader of Islington council, in which she welcomes the publication of local authority performance indicators such as those proposed in the citizens charter? Will he now consider extending the charters and strengthening them to ensure that they are effective for all citizens?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to Margaret Hodge's pamphlet. A number of serious Labour leaders in local government are coming out in support of some of the Government's actions. Margaret Hodge said—and it is something that is not often supported by Labour Members:
Most important, Government can insist that authorities submit their services to external validation … They can insist on publishing outcomes and they can compare performance between authorities".
That is the approach of the charter, the approach through local authority audit and the approach endorsed by Margaret Hodge, who has great experience of local government. It is an approach opposed by far too many Labour Members.

Mr. Stevenson: Does the Minister accept that, despite the citizens charter, many people who rely on the activities —or inactivities—of the Benefits Agency are suffering badly because of its inefficiency? Because of that serious problem, will the Minister undertake urgently to review the provision of compensation for those who are adversely affected by that inadequate service? Will he report to the House on that matter as quickly as possible?

Mr. Jackson: Like the hon. Gentleman, I heard the point made on that subject during Social Security questions earlier. A full apology was made for the circumstances surrounding disability living allowance. The position is improving and it will be put right. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about compensation.

Quangos

Mr. Elletson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many non-departmental public bodies were in existence in (a) April 1991 and (b) April 1992; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: There were 1,412 non-departmental public bodies in existence in April 1992 compared with 1,444 in April 1991. The April 1992 total is the lowest since the data were first collected in 1979.

Mr. Elletson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his answer—the fall in the figures is small, but welcome. Will he comment on the increase in the number of quangos that would have occurred under a Labour Government, especially in view of the Labour's plans for regional women's units and specialist—

Madam Speaker: Order. Not only is the hon. Gentleman's question out of order, it is hypothetical. If the hon. Gentleman has a substantive question that is in order, I shall take it.

Mr. Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that over the past year there has been a substantial fall in the number of quangos, which significantly would not have occurred under a Labour Government?

Mr. Waldegrave: As you decisively said, Madam Speaker, any reference to a Labour Government is indeed very hypothetical.
My hon. Friend is entirely right: there has been a fall. There are now 800 fewer quangos than there were in 1979, and 100,000 fewer people are employed in them.

Scientists

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to discourage scientists trained in the United Kingdom from seeking work outside the EC.

Mr. Waldegrave: No. It would be wrong to do so. Science is international. The United Kingdom benefits from scientists coming here from other countries, and our own scientists benefit from experience overseas.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy realise that his reply is breathtaking in its complacency —and also unpatriotic? Is he not aware that 1,000 British scientists are allowed to work in the United States alone, and that a real gap exists—both in terms of the graduates who seek to work in research science, and in terms of our ability to maintain them? Is it not time that the Government ensured that proper rewards existed in this country to encourage scientists to stay here working and developing their skills? Should not the Government also ensure that a proper career structure exists for research scientists?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little carried away. The universities' own statistical records show that there has been a net inflow of scientists every year since 1983. There is a tiny movement either way: about 1 per cent. leave each year. If we hark back to the long-distant days of Labour government, we find that about 35 per cent. of those with PhDs left for the United States in the 1960s. The figure is now rather under 10 per cent.
As for my reply being unpatriotic, is the hon. Gentleman really saying that it was unpatriotic of Freeman Dyson to go and work at Cornell university with Feynman? That is madness.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who normally endears himself to the House, has looped the loop in his question? Does not Britain provide the world —particularly the developing world—with a great benefit by sending its experts, especially its scientists, to help other countries to develop? Does it not also encourage young people to come to this country to train as scientists, and then to return to their own countries? Neither would be possible if my right hon. Friend listened seriously to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. All of us who spend our time going around university science departments welcome the fact that we hear many different accents from all over the world. Science is international. We are attracting as many scientists to this country as leave our shores—indeed, more. Of those who leave, the majority leave for short-term appointments and many subsequently return.

Dr. Moonie: It is very sad that the Chancellor of the Duchy fails to distinguish between going abroad voluntarily to expand one's career horizons, and being forced abroad by the grossly inadequate remuneration given to research scientists in this country and the utter failure to provide them with an adequate career structure. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on figures produced by the Science and Engineering Research


Council and the Medical Research Council over the past year, which show a 15 per cent. fall in the number of PhD awards?

Mr. Waldegrave: I would be the last to say that more cannot be done to encourage science careers in this country, and I hope that we shall present appropriate proposals. It is wrong, however, to adopt the broad-brush approach of saying that every scientist who leaves the country represents a setback, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not adopt such an approach.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Tracey: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the next interdepartmental meeting on the citizens charter will be held; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: On Wednesday, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Tracey: That is extremely good news. At the meeting, will my right hon. Friend ensure that standards of service and propriety in local government—particularly in Labour-controlled Lambeth council—are well examined?

Mr. Waldegrave: That might take up rather too much of our time. Others are interested in the matter, including the Audit Commission, which is right. That leads me to a natural development of my hon. Friend's point. Conservative Members welcome, for example, the Audit Commission's publication of comparative performance indicators for local authorities; the Opposition have opposed them at every turn.

Ms. Abbott: Does the citizens charter offer any recourse to British Rail pensioners who, it seems, must stand by and watch the Government loot their pension funds to the tune of £4.25 billion, something about which those pensioners will, apparently, have no say?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that the hon. Lady is right about that matter, but I shall write to her further.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity at Wednesday's meeting to press for further publication of the league tables to ensure better services all round?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Opposition, including their distinguished representative who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), always claim that they are in favour of open government, but whenever the question of the publication of information arises, such as the league tables on school information, they are against it.

Science In Higher Education

Mr. Miller: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of the Higher Education Funding Council for England to discuss funding for science in higher education.

Mr. Jackson: My right hon. Friend has not recently met the distinguished chairman of the Higher Education Funding Council, but it so happens that I met the chief executive only a week last Friday.

Mr. Miller: What steps does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster intend to take to stop the long-term decline in science funding in universities? Does he acknowledge that the dual support system is under threat and that that will have an adverse effect on attracting industrial funds to our universities?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken to talk about a fall in funding. Support for higher education in England will rise by 7·3 per cent. in 1993–94, or 4·4 per cent. in real terms. The figure for Scotland is about the same and that for Wales is about 9 per cent. The hon. Gentleman says that the dual support system is in jeopardy. We do not accept that it is. Total funding for academic research through the dual support system is now above £1 billion. The HEFC has allocated £673 million for research 1992–93. Estimated expenditure in higher education institutions by the research councils—the other part of the dual support system—in the current financial year will be £367 million. These represent considerable increases in funding over recent years.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at what age people become citizens for purpose of each charter promulgated by the Government.

Mr. Waldegrave: People of all ages can—and do—benefit from better quality services promoted by the citizens charter.

Mr. Hughes: That was not really the answer that I expected. The important issue, which I hope the Chancellor's Department will address—in conjunction, I assume, with the Home Office—is the ridiculous state in Britain whereby people come of age for different civic rights at different ages: some at 16, some at 17, some at 18 and some at 21. It would be much easier and much more in line with international practice to have a clear age of majority, which at the moment is meant to be 18, that applied to all civic rights and duties. Can the Chancellor look into that possibility and bring forward a proposal to that end?

Mr. Waldegrave: Every Member of this House will have his own views on that issue. I shall look into the matter. The difficulty is that I cannot imagine that anyone would welcome the age for any of those civic rights and duties going up. To bring the age down in certain respects would involve very controversial matters for the House. The hon. Gentleman has, however, raised a serious matter and I shall consider it.

Dr. Kim Howells: At what age might the patients of Wessex regional health authority be able to complain, through the citizens charter, about the fact that the health authority was ripped off for an undisclosed sum of between £23 million and £63 million of taxpayers' money to pay for a computer system that never worked and which made a lot of people rich?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should table a substantive question if he wishes to deal with a matter of that nature.

Justices of the Peace

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about recruitment of justices of the peace in the duchy.

Mr. Waldegrave: The recruitment of justices in the duchy area follows the same pattern as in the remainder of the country. Advisory committees recommend suitable candidates after interviewing applicants and considering the balance of the bench, which takes into account age, profession, residence and political views. In this way we try to ensure that a bench broadly reflects the community that it serves.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that my constituents, particularly those who live in the Reddish and Brinnington wards of Stockport, feel very aggrieved that the bench in Stockport does not reflect the social composition of the whole of Stockport but appears to reflect the membership of the Conservative party and of secret societies, such as the masons, rather than a proper cross section of the population? What is the Minister going to do to ensure that we have a judiciary on the bench represents the whole of the area that I represent?

Mr. Waldegrave: One of the things—and the hon. Gentleman has been helpful in this regard—is to bring forward more volunteers. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that since he quite legitimately began pursuing the matter in 1988, the number of people from the Reddish and Brinnington wards has increased from five to 13. That is an improvement and balances the number from the

Denton ward. We must get good candidates and we need the help of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and all hon. Members in that regard.

Citizens Charter

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to extend the citizens charter into the private sector.

Mr. Robert Jackson: The Government are pleased that so many private sector concerns are adopting the charter approach. However, I must emphasise that the purpose of the citizens charter is to raise the quality of service in the public sector where many customers have little choice about the services that they receive.

Mr. Banks: Yes, but if the Government are continually reducing the scope of the public sector through privatisation, surely the logic follows that the charters, which are mostly useless, should be extended into the private sector in respect of which hon. Members deal with a host of complaints. May I suggest that the Minister could start with a citizens charter for bank customers? Some customers have to face the most ridiculous charges imposed by greedy, grasping banks which, of course, are always looking to support the Conservative Government.

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he agrees with his party's line on public ownership. I notice that he has been saying that the privatised bus and rail services would be absorbed back into the public sector. Some of us wonder how that squares with the commitment of the Leader of the Opposition to the proposition that ownership is irrelevant

Sellafield (Discharge)

Dr. John Cunningham: (by private notice): To ask the Minister for the Environment and Countryside if he will make a statement about excessive discharges of radioactive material which occurred at Sellafield on Thursday 11 and Friday 12 February 1993.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate were informed of an incident at Sellafield at 1600 hours on Friday 12 February. The information indicated that the release occurred from the B204 stack as a result of work prior to decommissioning in building B203 which shares a ventilation stack with B204. This preparatory work in B203 was stopped as a result of the release and will not recommence until HMIP has reported.
HMIP and NII arranged for inspectors to visit the Sellafield site on Saturday 13 February to investigate the background to the release. B203 is a redundant building which has been shut down for 10 years. It is important that this and other buildings no longer in use are properly and safely decommissioned. We understand that as part of the preparatory work on decommissioning a small amount of alpha-emitting radioactive material was disturbed and emitted into the atmosphere. It is estimated that from the start of the incident to date, about 1,000 mega-becquerels of activity has been released. British Nuclear Fuels monitoring shows that emissions have dropped substantially. The most recent results show that emissions are down to about 20 mega-becquerels over a 24-hour period.
The House will be interested to know that the current authorised discharge limit is 4,300 mega-becquerels per annum, although BNFL. has been operating well within that limit in recent years, at about 100 to 200 mega-becquerels per annum. We therefore regard the incident as serious, although it is well within safety limits.
The House will also wish to know that on the basis of pessimistic estimates, the increase in dose to the public close to the plant is approximately 10 micro-Sieverts. The annual average dose in the United Kingdom is 2,500 micro-Sieverts.
Starting with HMIP and NII's preliminary visit to the site on Saturday, 13 February, a full investigation is in hand. There will be a further visit by HMIP and NII tomorrow. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspectors have also arranged for samples to be taken around the site perimeter. The results of this investigation will he reported to the chief inspectors of HMIP and the NII. I have asked the chief inspector of HMIP to report to me on all the circumstances of the incident, the lessons to be learnt and the actions to be taken for the future. I shall, of course, publish that report.
I emphasise that the incident occurred in redundant plant and is not associated with normal or planned operations on the Sellafield site.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Minister. Although we can all agree that the incident was serious, does the Minister agree that it is also unacceptable that one quarter of the annual authorisation of certain radio nucleides should be discharged in just 24 hours? Is it not also unacceptable that it took the management of British Nuclear Fuels longer than one would expect to make the

incident public, especially bearing in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and I visited the site on Thursday and Friday last week and were not informed that those excessive discharges had taken place?
Does the Minister accept, and will the management of British Nuclear Fuels note, that such behaviour does nothing to inspire confidence in them and the way in which they discharge their responsibilities? Can the Minister tell me and my constituents more about the qualitative nature of the radio nucleides which escaped? It clearly was not a contemplated and managed discharge, but an accident which should not have happened. What radio nucleides were involved? Is it true, for example, that one was americium? Can the Minister identify any others?
Will the Minister ensure that there will be the most rigorous and searching inquiry? I welcome his assurance that a report will be published. Is there any indication yet that British Nuclear Fuels might have exceeded the terms of its operating licence or failed to sustain best management practice in the conduct of the decommissioning? Can the Minister tell us whether any legal proceedings against the company will follow this totally unacceptable series of events?

Mr. Maclean: Of course it is always unacceptable when such unplanned incidents take place. The fact that hon. Members visiting Sellafield at the time were not informed, although that is not a legal requirement, would seem to be a rather extraordinary discourtesy. I suggest that the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) take up that matter with the management of the plant.
I am, of course, concerned about the reporting time to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and to the NII. HMIP and NII will look at that matter, and 1 expect them to report back to me. I can tell the House at this stage that the radio nucleides which were emitted were all those that one would associate with the plutonium atom. Of course, in due course I shall publish full details of whatever the radio nucleides were when we have that information.
I am not aware of any breaking of the licensing conditions, but of course that is a matter for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and NII when they carry out a thorough investigation to determine whether the best management practices were used. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that the authorities were not actually decommissioning at the time; they were undertaking some preparatory work, looking at ventilation shafts and trying to improve systems before actual decommissioning should take place. Obviously, I cannot say anything about whether legal proceedings would follow; that depends on the investigations carried out by the inspectors, and they must determine whether there is a legal case to answer.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Does my hon. Friend the Minister understand that there will be considerable concern at the seriousness of the incident? Will he confirm the figures which I thought I heard—that people living closest to the site will receive a dose estimated at 10 micro-Sieverts, compared with what is held to be the danger point of 2,500 micro-Sieverts? Am I right in understanding that that means that the dose which the people closest to the site may have received will be between a quarter and a half of 1 per cent. of the safety level? If that is so, may we not take comfort from the fact


that our safety rules and arrangements are such that the release of such a minute amount of material has led to widespread concern and a statement in the House?

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right in principle to draw attention to the small amount of radioactivity emitted locally and normal background radiation. The level of 2,500, which includes radiation emitted through medical processes as well, is not a safety limit or a danger limit; it is the normal dose emitted throughout the country in an average year. The safety level would be many times higher than 2,500, which makes my right hon. Friend's point even better. The fact that we have a full investigation of what has been a small emission shows how rigorous the inspectorate systems are in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In addition to the figures that the Minister gave as to the level of discharge relating to the current authorisation level, can he confirm. that the discharge recorded is about 300 mega-becquerels higher than the authorisation limit currently being discussed by HMIP and British Nuclear Fuels, which is about a third or a quarter as much again as is now regarded as acceptable? What will be the consequences of the discharge for the current application for thermal oxide reprocessing plant and the Government's consideration of that?

Mr. Maclean: That is highly speculative and has no connection whatever with the draft authorisation currently being considered by HMIP. It is for HMIP to determine what any new level should be.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Bearing in mind the presence on the site of the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), and their tendency to meddle in things, can my hon. Friend confirm that there is absolutely no question of their having left any doors open or pressed any buttons while they were on the site?

Mr. Maclean: I do not think that the hon. Members for Copeland and for Kirkcaldy would wish to push any nuclear buttons; I believe that their policy on that has changed now.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can the Minister confirm that the only reason why we have had an answer to this private notice question today is that, coincidentally, the discharge happened at the time my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and others were present at the plant? The truth is that many such discharges take place in nuclear power plants up and down the country which we never hear about.
It is high time that we had a full-scale public inquiry into the effectiveness and safety of nuclear power generally, especially when we are examining the question of the energy markets and the coal industry. We are subsidising nuclear power to the tune of £1.2 billion a year, and we are in the process of allowing Sizewell to add to that figure.

Mr. Maclean: As usual, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is talking absolute nonsense on the subject. Nuclear installations regularly report incidents and releases, and do so on every occasion. The fact that we

have a statement in the House today is not because of any cover-up, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but simply because the hon. Member for Copeland asked for it.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the considerable concern along the north Wales coast about the effect on health of radioactivity coming from Sellafield? The incident will have caused additional dismay, especially in view of the level of cancer which has been experienced along that coast recently. Can the Minister give an assurance that every aspect of the leak will be thoroughly investigated by the NII, especially those aspects which may be relevant to the decommissioning of nuclear power stations so that if there are lessons to be learnt they can be learnt before the decommissioning of further stations?

Mr. Maclean: There would be grave cause for anxiety and alarm only if people grossly exaggerated the release which has taken place. I hope that the facts and figures that I have given to the House today will allay any anxieties. I have said that there will be a full investigation by HMIP. It will report to me on any further action which may be necessary before we start a programme of proper decommissioning. I have also said that we shall publish that report fully.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: The Minister has said that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will do some testing. Will he assure the House that the results of that testing will be published? Can the south of Scotland and its agriculture industry, which has suffered previously from radiation leaks, be assured that testing will be undertaken properly and that the leak will have no effect on livestock and the food market in the south of Scotland?

Mr. Maclean: It does not help the hon. Gentleman's constituents or the food market in the south of Scotland or anywhere else to compare this incident with the Chernobyl incident. That is the only other major incident which has affected the food chain in Britain. The two incidents are totally different. The hon. Gentleman does a grave disservice to our industry by comparing them. I can assure the House that all the facts and figures that we collect are regularly published. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food publishes copious volumes of all the testing undertaken throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Alex Salmond: In view of the major leak from the same site in the 1950s, which was not revealed to the country for many years, perhaps the Minister would like to review the statement that he has just made to the House. In view of the recent incident, the long history of incidents at the site—under various names and various managements—and the pending prosecutions against BNFL for four breaches of the site conditions, can the Minister seriously tell the House that he is happy and satisfied with the management and safety of the site?

Mr. Maclean: The site is inspected regularly by HMIP and NII. I know of no country in the world which has such rigorous standards for nuclear safety as we have in Britain. If there are lessons to be learnt before decommissioning of old plant takes place, they will be learnt. That is why I look forward to the report from HMIP, which will give us and other countries good guidance on how one may undertake safe decommissioning of very old nuclear plant.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Minister reconsider once again his statement that there have been no previous incidents which have resulted in the contamination of food? In 1957, 11 tonnes of uranium were burning out of control at Windscale—now Sellafield —resulting in large-scale contamination of milk in the area. For a long period before that, Windscale contaminated the area by discharging to the atmosphere when it was a bomb factory. There has been a history of deception by the nuclear industry in Britain. Why do the Government not come clean and turn up on Friday to vote for a genuine freedom of information Act?

Mr. Maclean: I was not referring as far back as 1956 and the Windscale inquiry. The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) certainly suggested that more recent incidents of nuclear pollution had affected the food chain in Britain. I stand by what I said: it is of no help to constituents, food producers or food consumers in Britain to suggest that an incident of 1,000 mega-becquerels released into the atmosphere is responsible for massive contamination of the food chain. It is nonsense to suggest that or to compare the incident with Chernobyl.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Are there not great dangers in Members of Parliament using exaggerated language about problems which may exist in parts of the nuclear industry? In addressing a question to the Minister, may I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who suggests that incidents at Sellafield are not necessarily reported to the country, that every time an incident takes place at Sellafield the local Members of Parliament are informed? On this occasion there was a day's delay, but we are always informed. It is quite wrong for any Member of the House to compare what happened last week to what happened in 1957. In terms of damage to the environment, the incident last week was infinitesimal compared with that of 1957, which was an incident that we all regret.

Mr. Maclean: It is not often that the hon. Gentleman and I are on the same side in our reaction to an incident. I congratulate him on his wise words and commend them to all Members of the House.

Mr. Chris Smith: Can the Minister confirm that, while he said that the discharge was 1,000 mega-becquerels, the total discharge during

1991 was 274 mega-bequerels? Therefore, the incident is four times the total annual discharge, according to the last recorded facts, and should not be dismissed as minor. Can the Minister tell us why the discharge authorisations are so organised that no limits were broken in that instance? It cannot be right that one quarter of the plant's annual discharge limit went up one chimney in one day; surely the time scale of discharges ought to be taken into account, and not merely the total annual limit.
Does not the incident emphasise the importance of HMIP taking the utmost care, and erring on the side of caution if necessary, in their current consideration of discharge limits for Sellafield, including the thermal oxide reprocessing plant? Does not the incident throw into sharp relief the Government's drive for deregulation and self-monitoring of pollution discharges? There must be no cutting of corners in relation to the concern for the protection of public health and of the environment that we all share. Opposition Members demand that the highest and toughest standards, enforced and monitored by the public sector in the public interest, should be maintained to safeguard the public and the environment.

Mr. Maclean: So do the Government—that is why HMIP and NII inspectors were on site on Saturday morning, why their investigation is under way and why I shall publish the report that the chief inspector of HMIP makes to me. Judging from the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, it is a pity that he did not listen to the wise words of his hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I did not play down the incident or say that it was not serious; I said that we considered it serious, although it was well within the existing authorisation limit of 4,300 mega-becquerels.
The emissions during that three-day period were more than has been emitted by Sellafield as a matter of practice during the past few years. The emissions were within the authorised limit, which is for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to set. It is not for me to pronounce on the limit or for the House to pontificate on it. We have independent inspectors and regulators, who are admired for their independence. They set safety limits and regulatory requirements. Although the emission was unacceptable, it was within the authorised limits; that is the important point that the House should bear in mind, plus the fact that the emission was very low indeed.

Maastricht Treaty

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the process of ratification of the Maastricht treaty.
As the House knows, the purpose of the Bill before the House is to ensure that United Kingdom law, where necessary, conforms with the provisions of the Maastricht treaty.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in this House on 20 January that if amendment No. 27 were carried, United Kingdom law would not conform to the provisions of the treaty and that the United Kingdom would therefore be unable to ratify the treaty.
Those remarks were, of course, based on legal advice. However, in the light of discussion in this House and elsewhere, further careful and detailed consideration was given to the matter, and the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate were asked for their advice. I think it right, with the agreement and on the authority of the Law Officers, to inform the House of that advice, at the earliest practicable opportunity, and to explain the Government's position in the light of that advice.
In accordance with our usual practice when legislating, clause 1 of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill has been drafted to incorporate in our domestic law all amendments and protocols to the treaty of Rome which were included in the treaty on European union—the treaty of Maastricht.
The House will recall that the protocol on social policy authorises the other 11 member states of the Community to have recourse to the institutions, procedures and mechanisms of the treaty of Rome for the purposes of implementing their agreement on co-operation in the social area—the so-called social chapter. Most significantly, it specifies that acts adopted by the Council under the terms of the protocol shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom.
Amendment No. 27 would exclude from the scope of clause 1 of the Bill the protocol on social policy. That is all that amendment No. 27 would do. The amendment would not have any effect on the treaty itself. It would not change the agreement among 11 into an agreement among 12. It would not bring the social chapter into effect in this country. The amendment would simply exclude the protocol from incorporation in domestic law under the European Communities Act. The legal question is therefore whether the United Kingdom could ratify the treaty even if the protocol were not incorporated into domestic law.
The Law Officers advise that, if the amendment were carried, acts adopted under the protocol would still not apply to the United Kingdom. That is because it is of the very nature of the protocol that acts adopted under it should not be applicable to the United Kingdom. It follows that no rights and obligations arise from those acts which need to be given effect in our domestic law.
In summary, the Law Officers consider that, while incorporation of the protocol in domestic law is desirable, it is not necessary for ratification or implementation of the Maastricht treaty. In other words, there would be no

impediment to ratification if the amendment were carried because acts adopted under the protocol would still not apply to the United Kingdom.
I must make it clear that there can be no question of the United Kingdom ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures. The House will have the opportunity on Third Reading, after detailed consideration of all aspects of the Bill, to decide whether the Bill should pass into law. The United Kingdom will not ratify the treaty unlesss the Bill is approved by Parliament. But amendment No. 27 is not a proposal to adhere to the social chapter and its passage would not be a decision that this country should do so. The Government will continue to oppose the amendment because, as I have said, incorporation of the protocol in domestic law would be desirable. But, in the light of the Law Officers' advice, if the amendment were carried it would have no effect on our ability to ratify the treaty. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This is an important statement which the House has been waiting to hear. The House must come to order to hear the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Hurd: It constitutes a different siituation from that implied by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) when he moved the amendment and the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the House on 20 and 27 January. I regret that the legal advice then given to the House was not correct.
The Government's position on the substance of the matter remains unchanged. We continue to believe that the social chapter will harm growth and jobs in this country. We intend to press forward with the Bill so that we can ratify the treaty which I, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer negotiated at Maastricht, and which won an overwhelming majority on Second Reading in this House.

Madam Speaker: It may assist the House if I say a few words about the Foreign Secretary's statement. I felt it right to allow the Government to correct a mistake that had been made as soon as it came to light. Some questions will no doubt arise seeking clarification of what has been said. Page 500 of "Erskine May" states:
The House is not formally aware of the detailed proceedings of any committee until the bill has been reported; and attempts to refer in the House to proceedings on a bill during its consideration in committee are consequently irregular.
Therefore—[Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order and listen to this important announcement.
Therefore, any consideration of further proceedings in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill cannot be pursued in detail with either the Foreign Secretary or myself. The House cannot legislate in two places at once. I trust that hon. Members will appreciate that when I judge it time to move on.

Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for agreeing to make a statement today in response to my request. I am sure that he welcomed the opportunity to try to remove at least some of the confusion and disarray in Government circles resulting from the mess that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have got into over their fanatical determination to deny the benefits of the social chapter to the people of our country. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to remove the confusion and disarray set in train by


the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), on 20 January in this Chamber when he said that he was speaking on legal advice.
As today's statement is about the fourth different interpretation that we have had of the Government's position in the past five days, why should the House or the country have any more confidence in today's opinion than they were able to have in any of the others, including that of the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford, which has been so summarily dismissed by the Foreign Secretary in the Chamber today? I am surprised that the Minister of State has not accelerated the process of his already tendered resignation.
Does the Foreign Secretary recall that, from the outset, starting with the statement made by the Prime Minister, the House has been promised
that common consent in this country is exercised through a parliamentary democracy and through the voices and words of Members of Parliament in this House."—[Official Report, 3 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 832.]
If that has any meaning, why are we being told that the Government intend to ride roughshod over decisions made in the Chamber of the House of Commons? Does it not make a charade of the proceedings when we are told that —as the Foreign Secretary said in a radio interview—regardless of the decisions of the House, the Government will verify or ratify the Maastricht treaty only as it was when the Government agreed to it? What is the purpose of the weeks and weeks of deliberations in the Chamber and elsewhere if no effective change can be made?
If the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that he apparently does of amendment No. 27, which I tabled on behalf of the Labour party and which we shall certainly continue to press to a vote, why has he reiterated this afternoon the Government's determination to oppose it? What is the purpose of opposing it if, as he says, it makes no difference to the final outcome of events?
The truth is—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it —that our European partners would be pleased to see this country endorsing the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty, as they have done themselves. Today's statement reiterates the briefing heavily given on Friday to the effect that the Government would use the royal prerogative to ignore Parliament. The statement has the same message and the same impact as that briefing. The BBC said today that a Foreign Office official was now describing that briefing as mischievous nonsense. If it was, why did the Government indulge in the briefing in the first place—as they clearly did just a few days ago?
Amendment No. 27 was tabled on 30 May 1992, almost a year ago. The Government have wriggled, produced one explanation after another, and finally come to today's further explanation of why it is necessary to oppose the amendment and of what the legal consequences will be if it is not opposed or defeated. We had no confidence in the first Government position; we had no confidence in the position as explained by the right hon. Member for Watford; and we have no confidence in the statement by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon.

Mr. Hurd: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's points in sequence. I had intended to make a statement today, having received the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General last Thursday—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
There is no question of riding roughshod over the will of the House. If the House, against the Government's

advice, carried amendment No. 27, that would be the decision of the House, and it would mean, perforce, that the protocol that we are discussing would not be incorporated in the domestic law of this country. That would be a pity, because it is desirable that it should be, for the sake of completeness and tidiness. But for the reasons that I have given, on the advice of the Law Officers, it is not essential.
This leads to a crucial point. The House will be aware that the purpose of the Bill which, as you rightly said, Madam Speaker, is before a Committee of the House is to make United Kingdom law compatible with the union treaty. Two types of amendment can be and are being moved to it. Any amendment that would render United Kingdom law incompatible with the treaty would have the effect of making it impossible for the treaty to be ratified. Thus, from the Government's point of view, it is necessary for such amendments to be defeated.
Other amendments, while we may oppose them as undesirable, do not render United Kingdom law incompatible with the terms of the treaty. Another amendment that can be cited in this respect is the one about membership of the Committee of the Regions. We can argue about that and reach a decision on it; we can in either event ratify the treaty. Although the Government would seek to oppose that class of amendment, it would not, if carried, have any implications for ratification. The advice of the Law Officers is that amendment No. 27 falls into this latter category.
Now that he has said his piece, I think that the hon. Member for Copeland would probably accept the background as follows. The aim of his amendment, which, as he says, has been around for a long time, was to make it impossible for the Government to ratify the treaty in its present form and so, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, to bring about an intergovernmental conference at which we, the Government, would have to choose between accepting the social chapter and abandoning the treaty —that was the hon. Gentleman's declared aim. That, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase of 20 January, was the predicament in which he prides himself on seeking to place us. But his amendment does not achieve that aim, for the reasons that I have just given; it does not have that effect. We made that clear at the earliest practical opportunity after my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made it clear to me.
May I say something about the hon. Gentleman's main point, which must have been drafted before he heard what I had to say? There is no question of the decision about the Bill, and therefore about ratification, being made anywhere except in this House or in the other place. After thorough discussion, this House will decide whether to pass the Bill. If there is no Bill, there is no ratification of the treaty; and that is what parliamentary sovereignty means.

Mr. David Howell: Is not the position that Parliament makes laws and the Executive have the authority to make treaties? Is not the position that, as long as this Parliament enacts all the legal provisions that flow from the Maastricht treaty, and as long as Parliament approves the treaty in principle, as the House did on Second Reading, the Government are free to ratify the treaty? What steps will my right hon. Friend take to get that simple point into the mind of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?

Mr. Hurd: As my right hon. Friend says, ratification of the treaty is a matter for the Executive, but it is our practice, and must be our practice, not to ratify a treaty until Parliament has approved such changes in our domestic law as flow from the obligations of the treaty. That is why the Bill has been introduced before we ratify and why the Bill needs to be passed before we ratify.

Sir Russell Johnston: Is not the simple point that where there is a political will there is a legal way? Will the Foreign Secretary now tell us, quite directly, whether, if he had not received this new and convenient legal advice, he and the Government would have been prepared to jeopardise the treaty, irrespective of the damage that would be done in Europe, rather than accept the social chapter, irrespective of what Parliament said?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows, because he and I have discussed this across the Floor on several occasions and personally, of the very strong objections in terms of jobs and economic growth that every Conservative Member feels to the social chapter and its consequences for this country. The question in the form that he puts it does not arise.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the real reason for all this confusion, chaos and mess is that the Maastricht treaty is riddled with contradictions and, furthermore, that the arrangements that he has just described will not alter that position? Does he agree that the time has come to ensure that this treaty goes in the dustbin of history?

Mr. Hurd: I give a general answer to my hon. Friend's general point. The world is in substantial turmoil, both economic and political. The destruction of the treaty of Maastricht would add substantially to that turmoil. It would frustrate much of what we are trying to do, and if we were held responsible it would substantially reduce our say on matters of vital concern to us in Europe and the world.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, far from reassuring the House about the Government's use of the royal prerogative, he has confirmed it? The treaty was signed by the royal prerogative. The royal prerogative—the right to control a Bill—allowed the Bill to be drafted in such a way as to make the amendments meaningless. The right hon. Gentleman says that if amendment No. 27 were made it would have no meaning. Why? Because the Bill and the long title were drafted in that way. Is it not a fact that the whole problem about Maastricht is that all laws made under Maastricht thereafter will be made by the royal prerogative? If the House passes that Bill and the treaty is ratified, the legislative competence of the Council of Ministers in Brussels will get wider and wider, and that affects the domestic rights of the electorate and of the House. That is why the British people should have a say and why Parliament should have the right to amend the Bill in a meaningful way before it is put to the House. He has made the issue much clearer in his answer today.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is making his usual case against the treaty of Rome and the European Communities Act 1972. Of course they affected the situation, but the constitutional position remains as I set it

out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). Ratification of the treaty is an executive matter, but the Executive does not and cannot act unless and until Parliament has approved the necessary changes in domestic law. There is nothing new about that principle, although the right hon. Gentleman may wish to change it. The treaty of Maastricht involves no new principles.

Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there was never any intention to bypass Parliament in order to ratify the treaty? Will he also show some sympathy to those opponents of the Bill who have been prepared to vote in favour of the social contract, which every one of my right hon. and hon. Friends opposes, and even deprive them of their preparedness to vote for the proposition that the moon is made of blue cheese?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The political truth is surely that there is a majority in the House —that is demonstrated over and over again—in favour of ratification of the treaty. I believe that there is a majority against the social chapter. But the voting on amendment No. 27 is not central to either issue.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, if what he said today is correct, what the Minister of State said on 20 and 27 January on advice from the Law Officers was wrong? Would it not be a good thing for Law Officers to attend the Committee?
In respect of the prerogative, while it is true that certain titles of the treaty are subject to debate in the House and are part of the Bill, does the Foreign Secretary agree that titles I, V, VI and VII are not? Would it not be possible —indeed, is it not his intention—to ratify those titles by the prerogative? If he were really concerned with parliamentary democracy, would not the way forward be to print the whole of the treaty as schedules to the Bill so that we could go through it as we go through our domestic legislation?

Mr. Hurd: On the second point—I have heard the hon. Gentleman on that theme before, in Committee—he knows that those titles deal with intergovernmental co-operation. That is one of the characteristics of the treaty of Maastricht, although its critics would not always accept that. There are no obligations here that need incorporation into domestic law, and that is why they are not included in the Bill.
There is a point in the hon. Gentleman's first question, although I should like to correct him on one factual matter. What my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said on 20 and 27 January was said on advice not from the Law Officers but from legal advisers within the Department. In introducing the amendment, the hon. Member for Copeland went astray, and that is why I linked the two in my statement.
There are lessons to be learnt from this. My conclusion, and the error for which I have expressed regret and for which I take responsibility, is that we should have put the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown earlier. If the House wishes further advice on the meaning and effect of the proposed legislation, Law Officers are willing to be present when the Committee stage of the Bill resumes.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As we were misled on previous occasions, will the Foreign Secretary tell us


which Department's legal advisers gave the legal advice? In view of his clear statement, will he agree that it is outrageous, and contrary to the standards of a Conservative Government, that Cabinet Ministers should go on television and say that those voting for the amendment would be voting to apply the social chapter to Britain? In view of the content of the protocol, can he tell us who pays for the social chapter? It seems that the protocol says that we pay only the administrative costs. Could we not clarify these matters before we proceed?

Mr. Hurd: I shall try to do so. The legal advice came from within my Department. Those who are members of the legal profession and others will accept, I believe, that what I am about to say is true. In this sort of situation there are legal considerations on either side of the argument. The question at the end of the day is not whether those views or considerations are valid but which set of considerations is the more important. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in weighing the different considerations, came to the conclusion that I have reported to the House. That answers my hon. Friend's second point.
What my hon. Friend says about costs is accurate. I am advised by the Law Officers that the United Kingdom is obliged under the social protocol to contribute to such administrative costs to the institutions. It is not clear when or whether such costs will arise. If and when they do, I am advised that the likelihood is that they will be a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, as authorised under the 1972 legislation.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Is not the central dilemma facing the Foreign Secretary that he states that the incorporation of the exemption is desirable but then states that the passing of amendment No. 27 would not have any effect? If I understand the matter correctly, the right hon. Gentleman has said that it is necessary for tidying-up purposes to incorporate the social protocol into United Kingdom law. Is not the reason for that to ensure that if a United Kingdom citizen took a case based on the social protocol before the European Court of Justice, he or she would be met by a defence in British law, namely, that we had already legislated by means of the exemption? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's version of the legal position now creating still further uncertainty for the future?

Mr. Hurd: The legal advice is clear, and I have already given it. As a normal course of events, we seek to make the description of these clauses comprehensive. That is desirable for the sake of tidiness and completeness. The question is whether that consideration—it is the one that the hon. Gentleman is talking about—implies or constitutes necessity. The advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is that it does not.

Sir Cranley Onslow: Will my right Friend confirm for the benefit of any hon. Member who may have thought that by voting for amendment No. 27 he or she could effectively destroy the Maastricht treaty that that fox has now been shot?

Mr. Hurd: The effect of the amendment would not be negligible. On that score the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) was wrong. It would be that the protocol would not be incorporated in domestic law. It would not have any wider reach than that.

Mr. Peter Shore: Is not this entire business a shambles and a farce that sheds great discredit upon Foreign Office Ministers and the Law Officers? The House is entitled to have proper and up-to-date legal advice. That is something for which we have asked and which we have been denied on several occasions during our consideration of the Bill.
What is the consequence of what the Foreign Secretary has discovered? A few days ago he gave the clear impression during an interview on the radio that there would be serious trouble if amendment No. 27 was agreed to. He gave the impression that he was prepared to use the prerogative power to prevent that. The storm that followed has led the right hon. Gentleman to have an emergency meeting with the Law Officers and others. The fifth cavalry has come to the rescue with a new version of the meaning that would follow from the passage of amendment No. 27. Are we not in the most ridiculous position of having, late in the day, one Law Officer's explanation when we could easily get other explanations at later stages of the Bill?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is not being fair. I shall send him the transcript of what I said in the broadcast. Although I was tempted to do so, I deliberately and specifically did not enter into the legal thicket because I had not received my right hon. and learned Friend's advice. I spoke on matters of substance, which I have repeated today. I stated our objections to the social chapter and our intention to ratify the treaty as we signed it. It would not have been right to have given the particulars of my right hon. and learned Friend's advice to any of the media before informing the House today, which we have done. I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for his advice substantially before last week.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for again reiterating the primordial sovereignty of the House in making such decisions. In relation to the question of the my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who suggested that the Maastricht treaty should be consigned to the dustbin of history, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that 10 countries have ratified the treaty and that Denmark is about to do so with a significant majority? Should not the House proceed with the Bill as quickly as possible?

Mr. Hurd: I agree that that is the position, and that it is for this House to decide such matters. We have made a mistake, which I have acknowledged. However, the Labour party has also made a mistake in tabling an amendment that it supposed would put us in the predicament that has been described. It does not.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Foreign Secretary said that the present legal opinion is that the protocol on the social chapter does not create rights or impose obligations on the United Kingdom and its domestic law, and that therefore it does not have to be incorporated into domestic law. Surely there must be other articles, protocols and declarations of the Maastricht treaty which are in exactly the same position. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish a list of those in Hansard so that we may know what they are? In particular, will he confirm that all articles and so on leading to stage 3 of economic and monetary union are in exactly that category?

Mr. Hurd: The Committee will come to those matters point by point. I said—and the right hon. Gentleman was listening—that there are two sorts of amendment to the Bill. The Government have, of necessity, to defeat one sort if we are to ratify the treaty, because they affect the treaty. The other sort does not affect the treaty, but we may still wish to resist such amendments on grounds that are discussed and debated in the House. I gave as an example the composition of the Committee of the Regions. On the question of stage 3, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the protocol involved is quite different and, unless it is accepted and incorporated, the opt-out negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not have effect and the obligations of stage 3 would be imposed upon us. That protocol is in a different position from that pertaining to amendment No. 27.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the Opposition are playing ducks and drakes with the Bill, large and small businesses throughout the country are having to make commercial judgments that will affect both employment opportunities and the prosperity of the United Kingdom? Businesses wishing to come to this country to invest are also affected. My right hon. Friend's announcement today will be most welcome to the business sector.

Mr. Hurd: There is a strong feeling that we need to get on with the Bill. The House has quite rightly been given —indeed, it has taken—substantial time to consider the Bill. At the end of a very detailed and long consideration the House will make a decision on Third Reading whether to pass the Bill and thus enable the Government to ratify the treaty. It is very much in the national interest that that should happen.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of the opponents of closer European union argue very much about the democratic deficit between the institutions of Europe and this place? Does he not accept that his Government have today exposed a democratic deficit between the Executive and the legislature? Even if we voted in favour of the principle of the social chapter, the Government would still say no. Does not that mean that the concept of parliamentary sovereignty has been undermined once and for all? Would it not be better, therefore, to accept the Scottish constitutional legal position and to put the whole issue to the people in a referendum, with the option of including the social chapter?

Mr. Hurd: The Committee may have an opportunity to consider the hon. Lady's suggestion before long. That is another example of a matter that must be debated in its own terms. The hon. Lady's premise is wrong, however: if carried, amendment No. 27 would not impose the social chapter on the country, and she does the cause of democracy and orderly debate no good by claiming that it would.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: In view of the various strands that the Foreign Secretary seems to have identified in terms of legal advice, how can we be certain of any of the legal advice given to the Government in respect of any of the clauses and other provisions that we have discussed?

Mr. Hurd: That question has already been asked, and I have already answered it. I have mentioned the willingness of Law Officers to be present in Committee to answer points of legal importance that are addressed to them.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Foreign Secretary admit that, in the course of the past few days, the Government have been scared in losing a very important vote inside Parliament, which has debated the Bill line by line and clause by clause? Over the years, most of us have been told that, when a Government debating an issue are defeated on an amendment, they must accept it in principle. If the amendment has not been worded correctly, it is the Government's job to ensure that it is.
The Foreign Secretary is now saying, "We do not like the idea of losing in Parliament, so we are going to move the goalposts and rig the system. We are going to tell the British people that Parliament does not matter as far as we are concerned, and that we are going to go to higher authorities"—a gang of lawyers who can give the Government advice, provided that they have enough money to hand out. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. His is artificial indignation, as the whole House can tell. He knows what the amendment says and what it does not say. He knows that, if the amendment is carried, it will not impose the social chapter on this country; and he knows that, at the end of the day—although he will be in the minority—it will be for the House to decide whether to approve the Bill and ratify the treaty. That is the essence of parliamentary sovereignty.
In this country, we have a more detailed system of examination. By the time that we reach Third Reading, the House—or, at any rate, those who, like the hon. Gentleman, are particularly interested—will have spent day after day weighing up the matter. Ultimately, however, Parliament will decide—not the royal prerogative, the Executive or the lawyers.

Mr. Roger Gale: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the country's European and social policy should be determined on sound principles such as those employed by Baroness Thatcher when she introduced the Single European Act—the Government have followed them ever since—rather than on technical manoeuvring of the kind employed by the Opposition and a few little Englanders on the Conservative Benches?

Mr. Hurd: I agree. We accept that there is a social dimension to the life of the Community, and we have a better record than most in going along with what has already been agreed. We believe, however, that the extension of that dimension that is implied in the social chapter is harmful—or, rather, would be harmful—to growth and jobs in this country. That is why we shall continue with our policy of resisting it.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Is the Secretary of State aware that a very worrying air of incompetence is emanating from the Treasury Bench over this whole affair? Does he agree that that incompetence is causing a very worrying threat to the passage of the Bill and the ratification of the treaty, something about which some of us, who have spent many hours on the Bill, feel very concerned? In addition, some of us, who have spent a lot of time on the clauses, and in particular on


amendment No. 27, feel very annoyed that we seem to have been wasting our time because of the Government's inability to get their act together. Why were not the Law Officers called in to make a statement to the House before now?

Mr. Hurd: This debate arises not from a Government amendment but from one tabled by the official Opposition, on a basis clearly set out by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) at the beginning but which has proved to be, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, incompetent. I am not resiling from the regret that I have already expressed; I am willing to repeat it. I am also willing to repeat my wish that the Law Officers had been invoked earlier. But that is the position, and the position is now clear.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend note that those who asked for legal advice, having got it, do not like it? That is because they were hoping to enforce the social chapter on this country through this initiative—if you like, through the back Delors. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Opposition will now withdraw it? Many of those who put their names to this effort, particularly those in the Labour party and the Liberal party, claim to be positive Europeans, whereas those on this side of the House who argued for the amendment are anti-Community through and through.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend makes a fair summary of the political points.

Dr. Cunningham: We tabled amendment No. 27 10 months ago. For 10 months, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Employment, the Minister of State—the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones)—and the Home Secretary—indeed, almost every member of the Cabinet—accepted our interpretation of the amendment, yet suddenly, when the Government apparently face defeat after so many Ministers so frequently have been so wrong, a new legal opinion appears. Is not that very convenient for the right hon. Gentleman? Outside this House, however, people will conclude yet again that, when this Government govern, expediency is the rule of the day and priniple is nowhere to be seen.

Mr. Hurd: The hon Gentleman is understandably nettled because the amendment that he tabled is—and I use the phrase in its legal sense—incompetent. I have explained the background and the sequence of events. I have also explained that, some time ago, but after 27 January, it seemed to me to be necessary to ask for the advice of the Law Officers. That has recently arrived and I have immediately communicated it to the House. The result of that advice is perfectly clear: that the amendment, if carried, would prevent the incorporation of the protocol in the domestic legislation of the House, and that would be its full scope.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the beginning of the statement you drew a distinction between the proceedings in a Committee of the whole House and the proceedings of the House. Obviously the House appreciated your advice. While it is perfectly true that the matter that we have been discussing in the House is being considered in a Committee of the whole House, would you care to reflect upon the fact that the House, in another shape, has been given conflicting advice? In those circumstances, I suggest that there is a need for the Attorney-General, as the senior Law Officer, to come before the House, not the Committee, and make a statement.
I would simply say in passing, and in conclusion, that this is a matter of significant importance to Parliament, to our rights and to our sovereignty. I do not believe that it is sufficient simply to say, as may well be said, that there will be a statement in Committee. This is a matter for the whole House sitting as a House, and not as a Committee. I invite you, Madam Speaker, to reflect on that with the advice of the Clerks. We should, at the first opportunity, have a statement from the Attorney-General.

Madam Speaker: As the House knows, and as the hon. Gentleman appreciates, that is not a point of order for the Chair. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. All I can say to the House is that the Treasury Bench has heard the hon. Gentleman's request. We must leave it at that for the time being.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further points of order on that matter because I have just dealt with it. If there are different points of order, of course I must take them.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a different point of order, although on a similar argument, there is a Scottish situation—

Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat? What he is saying is that his point of order is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Salmond: It is a point of order for the Chair.

Madam Speaker: If it is a point of order for the Chair, I will hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Salmond: I know that you, Madam Speaker, are anxious to protect the rights of Scottish Members and will be aware of the Scottish aspect, which the Government should also hear.

Madam Speaker: I am sorry?

Mr. Salmond: There are different Law Officers for Scotland.

Madam Speaker: Of course. I recognise that and that is why I was so concerned to ensure that a member of the Scottish National party was called during today's statement.

Housing

Mr. Andrew Miller: I beg to move,
That this House is alarmed by reports from all areas of the United Kingdom regarding the acute shortage of low cost housing available for rent or for purchase under all systems of tenure or ownership; calls on the Government to provide urgently for the release of capital receipts derived from the sale of council property from all previous financial years for housing investment both directly by local authorities and by partnership schemes and for links to be established between agencies providing housing, health and social care to ensure that provision is made for all people in need; and further calls on the Government to ensure that people have the right to decent and appropriate conditions including facilities for the disabled.
It is perhaps a pity that such an important debate on matters relating to housing has been delayed due to the farce that we have just seen. If the Government had got their act together, we would have had another 45 minutes to deal with this very important subject.
It is easy to fall into the trap of suggesting that problems in one's own constituency are unique. I had no idea of the scale of the housing crisis facing this country outside my area of the north-west of England until I compared notes with my colleagues. If we want to begin to tackle the problems, we do not need the Government's laid back approach of "It'll be all right on the night"; we need radical action from the Government. I will refer in detail to my constituency to give the House a flavour of the problems in one constituency which is by no means the worst off in the land, but by no means the best off.
My constituency comprises part of the borough of Ellesmere Port and Neston and part of the council area of the city of Chester. Some 10,000 electors live in the latter part. There are 4,500 people on the housing waiting list in the borough of Ellesmere Port and Neston and 5,000 in the city of Chester area.
I want to examine the facts in some detail and I hope that that will demonstrate to the House that the problem lies not with local authorities, private landlords, housing associations or the owner-occupied sector, but right here with the Government. The problem is their failure to recognise the importance of the links between the breakdown in the economy generally and the growing crisis in housing.
In the rural Chester area, the council has undertaken a major survey to determine the extent of rural housing need. The results of two pilot surveys show an under-estimation of need in respect of the housing waiting list. There is a substantial level of requests for rented accommodation in preference to owner-occupation.
In its 1992 report, the Rural Development Commission highlighted the problems and cited Chester as a case study. The report refers to the low average wage of often less than £3 an hour—against a background of the Government wanting to abolish the wages councils—and the average private rent of £63 a week. The report also refers to other difficulties in respect of trying to resolve the problem in rural areas. Thirty seven per cent. of Chester's rural council housing stock has been sold off. With a rural turnover of 6 per cent., which is substantially less than the urban area, there is a real problem.
Since April 1989, there has been a 25 per cent. increase in the housing waiting list in the borough of Ellesmere Port

and Neston, from 3,276 to 4,492. As bad as that figure is, it hides the real problem which is the time that people have to wait in order to be housed. I will refer to harsh statistics to illustrate my points and I ask hon. Members, many of whom on the Conservative Benches live in relative opulence, to think carefully about what the figures mean.
With regard to the increase in the housing waiting list from 3,276 to 4,492, in April 1987, a family with one child had to wait just one month in Ellesmere Port and Neston on average to obtain council accommodation. That reflects a well-run Labour-controlled authority of which there are many up and down the land. Regrettably, as a result of the Government's policies, that waiting time has increased to 42 months—

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Well run?

Mr. Miller: The Government Whip may criticise that point from a sedentary position, but I challenge anyone to criticise the authority which has managed its housing stock extremely well. The Government are responsible for the increase in waiting time to 42 months.
The main contributory factors to the increase in waiting lists are constraints on new build, the effects of the poll tax, stress related to family breakdown, unemployment and repossessions. After.14 years of Tory trial and error, one would have thought that the Tories would have got it right; but no, the problems continue. It is the public's trial based on Tory errors.
In this month's House Builder magazine, the Chancellor of the Exchequer displays an awe-inspiring ignorance. Under the headline, which I found difficult to believe,
The Government's done its bit",
the Chancellor argues that the housing market can look after itself after his autumn statement. What complacent drivel. Having set out what is so obviously a flawed argument, he concludes:
the Government cannot underwrite the housing market; nor can it insulate the building and construction trades from the economic cycle.
When the Prime Minister eventually realises that the Chancellor just is not up to the job, I suggest that he looks at the cartoon linked to that article in which the Chancellor is pointing to building workers saying, "Gentlemen, over to you." Yes, any one of them could do a better job than the present incumbent. Any one of them could demonstrate the clear links between the state of the economy and the construction industry. Any one of them could tell the Chancellor that his autumn statement was just a drop in the ocean. Any one of them would have more concern for the needs of the homeless and people living in inadequate accommodation than the Chancellor.

Mr. Charles Hendry: As the hon. Gentleman referred to the autumn statement, is he aware that the £577 million allocated to housing associations has already led to 11,000 houses being brought back into use by housing associations?

Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman is somewhat premature: that has not happened. If he waits a little longer, he will hear my economic analysis and I hope that he will then appreciate that the scale of the problem is much greater than has been suggested. If the Chancellor spent less time evicting his own tenants and more time thinking about the nation's economic plight, perhaps he would really start to understand what is happening.
In the House Builder, under the byline "Absent jury", the president of the House-Builders Federation, Mr. Tony Hillier, states:
Clearly, the economy dominates all. The slump in the housing market is inextricably linked to the continued failure of the general economy to move out of recession. The jury is still out on whether the Chancellor's Autumn Statement was sufficient to stimulate the economy into decisive action. The Government clearly does not believe that a recovery in housing is a pre-condition for recovery in the wider economy, and we at the HBF have suspended judgment to see who is right.
People at the HBF obviously believe one thing and the Government believe another. He went on to say:
When I took chemistry 'A' level, many years ago, I grappled with molecular theory"—
I was attracted by that statement, because I grappled with molecular theory as well—
which taught me that life was made up of various sub-atomic particles—protons, electrons and neutrons. In my journey through life I have since discovered a further particle, which seems to be the main building block of life: that is, of course, the moron.
It seems to me that it is this particular particle which generates much of the housing policy of the DOE and other Government departments.
I could not put it better myself. Mr. Hillier's knighthood obviously goes down the Swanee.
My staff have been talking to local estate agents. I thank the estate agents who took part in my little survey. It was particularly important because it was an attempt to put into perspective some parts of the problem that we face. I shall describe to the House some of the anecdotal comments that came from estate agents. The first said:
Not wonderful—not very good at all!
She said that things picked up after the new year but fell again and that if interest rates stayed down they would improve. According to that estate agent, it is basically supply and demand. She has many properties on her books without chains but they are not moving either. Property prices are down by 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. in the past two years. The second estate agent said:
There are positive signs of improvement this year, busier than last year.
Although there are more properties on the market, they are not selling any more. Lots of people appear to be waiting for interest rates to fall again. When the market picks up and house prices are realistic, they should sell. Another estate agent said that last year was the worst year on record. Prices dropped by 10 per cent. That estate agent was a little more encouraged by the beginning of 1993, but he said that that
could be wiped out by a rise in interest rates and local employment setbacks.
The importance of that for the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Gedling) is that, according to the estate agents to whom I have spoken, there are direct links between the general economic situation and the needs of the housing industry. Another estate agent said that redundancy worries and possible job loss are more important than keeping the brake on interest rates. The general links are clearly seen by estate agents.
As the House can see, estate agents' views are not all necessarily bleak in respect of the owner-occupied sector. But, even if one were to take the most optimistic of those comments, unless the supply side is addressed in terms of the low-cost end of the market, there can be no solution. We simply have too few houses to meet the nation's need for housing of a decent standard. Add to that the problems of negative equity and the problems in the private sector

start to become even more clear. Negative equity more than doubled last year to £2·68 billion. Also, 27 per cent. of people buying the cheapest property have negative equity. If this year's fall in house prices continues, by the end of the year negative equity will double.
A resolution of the issue of confidence raised by the agents to whom I referred will occur only when the economy gets back on the move. Of course, most people bar the Chancellor think that a house-building programme that targets the low-cost sector would have an early impact on confidence. In turn, that would provide an incentive to the marketplace and take pressure off local authorities by increasing interest elsewhere in the spectrum, and remove or at least reduce the number of repossessions. In turn, the chain reaction would release precious resources which could be used to address many other pressing social problems. The formula is quite straightforward and simple.
Examples of how the system has gone wrong can be seen throughout the country. The Minister for Housing and Planning recently suggested that mandatory renovation grants might be abandoned entirely due to the financial pressures that they are placing on local authorities. Although financial pressures on councils are undoubtedly increasing, such a step would be extremely short-sighted. It would accelerate deterioration of the housing stock, affect the most vulnerable groups in society and reduce the supply of housing.
As hon. Members know, housing capital finance is an extremely complex subject. Capital expenditure can be derived from three sources: first, permission to borrow money; secondly, housing capital receipts; and, thirdly, rent income. The Government issue a basic credit approval which covers all council activity, not just housing. However, they do that in stages to make it appear that capital allocation is being made specifically for housing. The first stage is the announcement of the housing investment programme allocation. That in itself does not confer permission to borrow, but it is the Government's assessment of what a council needs to spend on its capital works.
I shall set out in careful detail the next part of my argument because it shows the anomaly between the way the Government manipulate the figures and the real facts facing local authorities. In the case of my local authority, the "receipts taken into account" figure significantly increased in 1993–94. That represents central Government's assessment of the council's ability to finance capital expenditure from usable capital receipts. The figure is based on actual usable capital receipts as at 31 March 1992, plus an estimate of the likely usable receipts that will be generated in 1992–93. However, the latter figure is modified as though the relaxation on capital receipts rules that was announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement had applied from 1 April, which of course it did not.
For Ellesmere Port and Neston, matters have been made worse by the fact that the council received a one-off windfall capital receipt of more than £3 million before 13 November 1992. Therefore, although it was able to use only 50 per cent. of that money, the Government treated it as 100 per cent. usable. That was a general fund capital receipt, not a housing capital receipt. Moreover, the Government have made the assumption that that represents the typical usable capital receipts during the year and therefore the figure has been projected to 1993–94. The effects of that perverse methodology in


calculating receipts taken into account is that in 1993–94 the housing capital programme will lose credit approvals amounting to £793,000, which actually relates to general fund capital receipts, half of which the council is not allowed to use anyway.
By comparison, it is estimated that additional usable housing capital receipts released as a result of the Chancellor's autumn statement are £280,000 in 1992–93 and £572,250 in 1993–94. Against that, the amount of set-aside capital receipts—the amount of capital receipts which the council owns but is not allowed to spend—is approximately £11·5 million. That logic is perverse and must be changed.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the perverse logic of the Government in their attitude to capital receipts. Is my hon. Friend aware of the even more perverse position of the Minister of Housing ten years ago—he was a junior housing Minister at that time—when he was advocating the use of all accumulated capital receipts as absolutely essential for the housing programme? That is an extraordinary inconsistency on the part of the Government who now claim that they cannot release the £5 billion which is available and would make such an enormous difference in meeting housing needs.

Mr. Miller: I bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge and expertise in the field of housing. I agree with him wholeheartedly that not only my small detailed example but the whole logic of the Government's position is perverse.
This morning, I received a letter from the Maritime Housing Association which set out the difficulties that the association faces. Maritime housing is an area supposedly being helped by the current Administration. The association wrote to me on behalf of all members of the committee of management to express concern about the level of average housing association grants for rental schemes which is projected for 1994–95 and 1995–96. A small housing association is expressing that view. It has written to all Members of Parliament in the greater Merseyside area. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points which have been made. We face serious issues.
The House Builder is not a left-wing tract as far as I am aware. In that magazine, the Minister for Housing and Planning takes a marginally more enlightened view on which I congratulate him. He says,
There can be no doubt that the issues surrounding Housing are among the most important facing us today.
When I first read that statement I thought that the Minister had seen the light and was on his way to Damascus. He continued by saying—[Horn. MEMBERS: "He does not know where it is."] He does not know where the article is, either. He continued by saying, and I think that it is a quote from the Department of the Environment's annual report:
The Government's aim is to ensure that a decent home is within the reach of every family whether it is owned by them, rented from private or social landlords or part owned and part rented.
He then goes on to promote a series of solutions, some of which I would go along with. However, the problem is his

failure to distance himself from that wretched Chancellor and recognise the scale of the problem facing the country.
He said that his package is
to provide a kick start"—
Labour Members were criticised for using "kick start" during the election—
to the depressed housing market, while at the same time providing some additional 20,000 social homes this year.
I have to say to the Minister that that simply is not enough. His logic and financial methodology are suspect in the extreme.
Earlier, I accused the Minister of underestimating the scale. Why did he do that? He did it simply because, with all the expertise at his fingertips, he is satisfied with a target figure of 20,000. The Institute of Housing says that the target should be 100,000. Shelter agrees with that view, as do the Housing Corporation and that other well-known left-wing think tank, the Audit Commission.
In considering action for the Budget, the Chancellor would do well to examine the arguments of the Institute of Housing. The institute says,
House building is one of the most effective ways to create new employment because it is labour intensive. Every £1 million invested in new houses or renovation creates as many as 50 new jobs. If 100,000 new jobs can be created overall, something over £750 million would be gained by the Exchequer. Most construction products are produced from United Kingdom sources so the import bill for expanded house building will be modest. House building primarily stimulated United Kingdom materials suppliers. Part of the cost of the investment programme would be offset by savings in benefits and recovered tax income.
On the same theme, Shelter says,
In 1990 nearly 5,000 building firms became insolvent, followed by 7,000 in 1991. The building employers estimate that an average of 600 jobs—about 300,000 in total—will have been lost each working day in the past two years to the end of 1992. Another 100,000 could be lost by the end of 1993.
Each unemployed person costs the state, on average, £8,900 in benefits and lost tax. In just two years the collapse of the construction industry may well have cost the Exchequer £2,700 million, and much more if unemployment in related trades is considered … If lost corporation tax and stamp duty are included, the recession in the construction industry has probably already cost over £4,000 million.
Later, I will set out arguments as to why that figure is larger.
The motion talks about links between different agencies and appropriate housing for people with disabililities. What do I mean by that? One of the most frustrating aspects of public administration in the United Kingdom is the way in which everything works in little boxes. Departments and, indeed, empires build up in splendid isolation with no knowledge or even a care about the rest of the world. In addressing the problem which we face in that area, we can examine the health links. Shelter argues that
meeting the needs of homeless people costs more per person than meeting the needs of the rest of the population.
That is fairly obvious. It says that the issue is causing considerable concern to health authorities—we have not seen any action on that—but, as yet, there are no estimates of cost. Similarly, few studies have estimated the costs of bad housing. The Department of Health has recently estimated that the cost to the NHS of treating illnesses created through condensation runs at £800 million per year. We must add that to the figure of £4,000 million and all the other health cost implications.
Likewise, much of what happens on the ground with regard to social services relies on the good will of local authority officers trying desperately to solve the


housing-related issues which stem from, for example, care in the community. We need a lead from the top to resolve some of the housing-associated problems.
My final illustration of the need for greater cross departmental links relates to people with disabilities. Is there not a basic human right for people to be housed in appropriate conditions or are the Government happy to see people such as the young man I saw a fortnight ago whose mother is becoming more and more ill coping with his disability? The Government are not allowing the local authority to spend money which is available to provide that man with proper ramps or a stair lift. Not only should existing moneys be released: we should have a long hard look at the method of delivery.
Even the Department of the Environment recognises that people with disabilities are discriminated against, although it does not seem to do much about it. In early 1992, data showed that only 30 accessible homes were being built for every 100,000 disabled people and that there were 1,170,000 outstanding requests for adaptations to existing homes. I doubt whether there is a better example of discrimination anywhere in the United Kingdom.
I shall now turn to the economic issues and the solutions to the problems with which I have been dealing. I know that my hon. Friends intend to expand some of the arguments that I have set out. Many of the necessary solutions are well described in a document published by Shelter last year called "Moving Forward. A Programme to Meet Housing Need." On council and housing association empty homes it says:
These would be brought back into use through rehabilitation and improvement work. Councils could also fund housing association repairs in return for nomination rights for homeless households currently in temporary housing. The programme envisages that 30,000 empty homes would be repaired and brought back into use over a five year period.
The programme also deals with private sector leasing and purchase. It says:
Councils should be allowed to offer owners of homes, used on a lease, a cash sum to buy the home when the lease expires. There are currently an estimated 17,500 homes used on lease by councils in England, with the majority in London.
The programme makes recommendations about private purchase. It says:
This would involve the purchase of private unsold and repossessed homes by local authorities and housing associations from developers, lenders and private owners. Advantage could be taken of the current state of the private housing market.
The programme also deals with private and Government empty homes. We often hear comments from Conservative Members about the number of empty local authority homes. The number of empty homes is very large. Throughout the land a total of 640,000 houses are vacant, many of which are in the private sector and require finance in the ways that were described earlier. Some empty homes are in local authority hands and 31,000 are in Government hands.
The Government could take a lead in making empty homes available through an expansion of shared and low-cost home ownership. An expansion of the existing programme of shared and do-it-yourself ownership through housing associations would meet the needs of many households. Of course, it is also necessary to expand new build. I refer hon. Members back to my earlier

comments about the House-Builders Federation. That new build clearly needs to be demonstrably targeted towards the homeless.

Mr. Barry Porter: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's detailed knowledge of the housing market. It is so detailed that I sometimes think that he misses the wood for the trees. If the ideas that he sets out are so obvious and straightforward and have no effect on the public sector borrowing requirement, why does no other western industrialised country follow those policies?

Mr. Miller: The answer to that is yes, of course they do. There are plenty of examples. Clearly, the one difference between other countries and Britain is that we have a different pattern of ownership. But the methodology that I have described for solving some housing problems has been applied elsewhere in Europe.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Miller: No. I shall finish now. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity shortly, if Mr. Deputy Speaker allows.
My motion refers to the release of capital receipts. The pace of that release should not be determined by the Department of the Environment on its own. It is time that the Department got together with the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and the Treasury and conducted an analysis of the overall cost to the economy in the way that I have described. It could then launch a crusade aimed at attacking the terrible evil of the current housing shortage in our society. Such an approach would produce huge social advantages but would also have enormous economic benefit.
Vision and original thought have not been the hallmarks of this Administration, so I shall not be greedy and ask for the impossible. But the real work has been done and Opposition Members will have no objection if the Government pinch our ideas and those of some of the organisations that have advised them. For the homeless, for those living in inadequate conditions, for those in financial difficulty and for the unemployed, we need action and we need it now.

Mr. David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on his success in winning the ballot. I have listened carefully to the comments that he has made on housing. It will probably not come as any surprise if I say that I do not agree with them. However, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak on housing. First, it gives me an opportunity to talk about my constituency of Basildon. Secondly, it gives me an opportunity to talk about the reports in my local newspaper of the visit to my constituency last week of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).
Before I deal with those points, I pay tribute to our Front-Bench team on housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) has great expertise on housing. I do not think that there is anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) does not know about housing: he is a superb Minister and I pay tribute to his many initiatives.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend may have heard Opposition Members ask from a sedentary position where my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is. My hon. Friend may be aware that this afternoon our hon. Friend the Minister is visiting a hostel in London, examining the needs of homeless people.

Mr. Amess: I thank my hon. Friend for that remark; sadly, good manners do not appear to be so highly regarded as they once were.
My hon. Friends and I have absolutely no idea what the Labour party stands for these days. Socialism appears to have been dumped, although very quietly. The Labour party does not say publicly that clause 4 has been abandoned. It is all about winning elections. Nowhere can one see the Labour party's hypocrisy more clearly than on housing. What does the Labour party stand for?

Mr. Miller: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he agrees with the programme that I have just set out, we welcome that.

Mr. Amess: I thought that I had started by saying that I did not agree with the content of the speech of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I wish to talk briefly about the Labour party's policy on housing. Nowhere can one see its hypocrisy more clearly. The Government introduced the right to buy. The two socialist parties—Labour and the alliance—fought that Bill word for word and line by line. They did not want council tenants and new town commission tenants to have the right to buy.
However, when the policy proved popular, Labour and the alliance changed their view. There was no longer talk of buying back the properties. All of a sudden that was quietly dumped, although Labour was in difficulty with its left-wing councils throughout the country. Lambeth is not an isolated case. Socialist-controlled Basildon district council is one reason why the Conservative party is in the majority and the Labour party in opposition. When the market got into difficulty and interest rates rose, the Labour party decided that it was not such a good idea for people to own their own house.
The Conservative party has a consistent policy on housing. We want to give people the opportunity to live in decent property.

Mr. Raynsford: Cardboard boxes?

Mr. Amess: We want people to be able to own their property, if they want to do so. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is talking about cardboard boxes from a sedentary position. I shall deal with that point.
It does not matter who is the Member of Parliament, the No. 1 subject about which people come to constituency surgeries is always housing. It is not what the Opposition parties think.

Mr. Raynsford: Yes, it is.

Mr. Amess: As far as I am concerned it is not. The problem is caused by the popularity of transient relationships—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members listen, they will learn what I mean. Conservative Members are not frightened to stand for something. We understand that Opposition Members are frightened to enunciate their policies, but I am glad about that.
I was talking about the popularity of transient relationships. Men walk in and out of relationships; they produce children with one woman, abandon her, go on to another woman, produce more children, and so on. Those women and children are the victims of many of the policies supported by Opposition Members, who should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend touched on a fundamental question—the instance of family breakdown in our society—in an interesting and pertinent way. Does he agree that we hear precious little about that from Labour party Members, who have no idea how to deal with that central question?

Mr. Amess: How right my hon. Friend is. Labour Members have no interest in family life and do not want families to stay together. They are interested only in designer socialism. The hypocrisy is that Labour Members, who always pretend to support the working class, come to areas such as Basildon, thinking that they know best how ordinary men and women should live their lives, but my constituents do not want to be told what to do by socialists—

Mr. Clive Soley: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a well-known prejudice of Conservative Members. The number of broken relationships has decreased and is not significantly different from the number 15 or 20 years ago. The big difference is that, according to the Duke of Edinburgh's report on housing, there are 2 million fewer homes available for rent than there were in 1980. Does the hon. Gentleman want to comment on that? The lack of homes in the rented sector, rather than marital breakdowns, is to blame for our housing difficulties.

Mr. Amess: I have no idea where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures, but he is wrong about both issues.
I was talking about the breakdown of settled relationships. It is no good people coming to our surgeries because they think that the council or the state can be a substitute family. That is not good enough. I want men to be responsible for their offspring. The Conservatives will be dealing with that problem from 1 April.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I was fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's definition. He mentioned transient relationships and settled families, but it has to be one or the other. I remind him that only he, or someone like him, could make such statements about women. I assure him that none of the women with young children who have come to my surgery have done so to get council housing.

Mr. Amess: That is less than generous of the hon. Lady. She knows perfectly well that that is not what I said.
My experiences in Basildon are not very different from those elsewhere in the country. Fathers of children should take some responsibility for their accommodation. I do not want the women or children to be punished, but I want there to be some responsibility—

Mr. John Battle: Tell that to Cecil Parkinson.

Mr. Amess: If the hon. Member for Leeds, West will calm down, I shall come to his remarks and his visit to Basildon shortly.
I am talking not merely about the popularity of transient relationships, but about my experience of families in the east end of London, who stayed together and helped one another out. It is sad that 16, 17 and 18-year-olds leave home and have to live in cardboard boxes—as the hon. Member for Greenwich saidx2014;but in this day and age there is no need for anyone to live in a cardboard box.
Under this Government, this is a free country, and any hon. Member can travel anywhere and can visit other Members' constituencies. If the press reports are accurate, the hon. Member for Leeds, West—who is more than able to intervene if reports are not accurate—visited my constituency last week and advised my constituents at a meeting on how to vote in a ballot on the transfer of housing. I find that extremely interesting. I do not know how many times he has been to Basildon. My home is there, I have represented the town for more than 10 years and I know the people only too well.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: It is nine and three quarters.

Mr. Amess: Does the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) want to intervene? It appears not.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West advised my constituents how to vote. As the House knows, Basildon is the finest town in the country—probably the finest town in the whole world—so it is not surprising that people wish to come and see how we do things. One thing that my constituents do not like is socialism. My constituents threw out the rotten socialist council, which I had had to deal with for the past nine and three quarter years, last May—if the hon. Member for Burnley wishes to quibble about the difference between nine and three quarters and 10 years. Fifteen Conservatives stood and 15 won the election, with swings of between 20 and 50 per cent. from the socialists to the Conservatives.
It is amazing for the hon. Member for Leeds, West to visit Basildon. In all the years I have represented the town, the Opposition Front Bench has known that Basildon Labour party is crazy and that its policies are bringing the Labour party into disrepute as it tries to fool the electorate so as to gain power at the next general election in four or five years' time. The Opposition Front Bench have distanced themselves from Basildon, but the hon. Member for Leeds, West seeks wisdom and has visited Basildon.
Since 1960, succeeding Labour councils have promised Commission for the New Towns tenants that they would take over their properties. Socialist councils have said that they would be happy to take over the properties. Under the Labour Government in 1977, the council could have done so, as Labour-controlled Harlow did.

Mr. Barry Porter: My hon. Friend's description of the joys of Basildon almost brought tears to my eyes. I have never had the privilege of being there and I am not sure that I shall be putting that situation right either. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned capital receipts, and I understand that my hon. Friend intends to come to that subject. Is it not the case that there would not have been any capital receipts to argue about if it had not been for a Conservative Government?

Mr. Amess: How right my hon. Friend is. I will tell the House how much the stupidity of the socialist-controlled council has lost my community charge payers.
In 1977, the council had the opportunity to take over the housing, as Labour-controlled Harlow did, but said that it was too expensive. In 1976–77 the council was in deep consultation with the Department of the Environment and got to the point of taking over the property. At the last minute, it phoned the Department and the deal was called off. Goodness knows how much that cost us.
The council could have taken over CNT housing stock, which then comprised 15,000 properties, at any time during the next eight or nine years. The Conservative Government even shortened the time required under the transfer scheme from six to three months, but nothing happened until 1985, when socialist-controlled Basildon district council put in an offer. It offered £500,000 for those properties, although the current value of the remaining 12,000 properties is £113 million. Since that time, the dear socialist council has spent more than £300,000 of ratepayers' and community charge payers' money on propaganda to kid the people that it wanted to take over those properties. That is the nonsense with which my constituents have lived year in, year out, month in, month out. Yet the hon. Member for Leeds, West went to Basildon to advise my constituents about housing transfer.

Mr. Battle: I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman. I was invited to Basildon because tenants have particular questions that they want answered. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to tell me the answers that he will give to his constituents, because he knows that CNT tenants will be transferred to a new housing association. That association claims in its propaganda that it will give rent guarantees, but those guarantees can only apply to those tenants when their rents go through the roof as a result of his Government changing the grant rates in the next two years.

Mr. Amess: I shall refer to those issues later. The hon. Member for Leeds, West may then feel that he would like to apologise—

Mr. Battle: Answer the question.

Mr. Amess: I will. I do not need to be told my duties by the hon. Gentleman. I fulfil those duties; that is why I was elected in 1983, in 1987 and in 1992, and that is why I shall run for office again in 1997. I take no lectures from Opposition spokesmen who know nothing about local issues.
The Labour council has spent more than £300,000 on propaganda. It has wasted that money on broadcasting a message that had nothing to do with housing need. That message was simple, "The wicked Conservatives are awful —vote Labour." The cost of the current advertising to CNT tenants about the transfer to the council is being borne by the Government.
The previous socialist council even spent money producing a video to put its message across. There was one famous occasion when I led a delegation of joint estate management representatives, together with a tenant representative—he later became deputy leader of the socialist council—to the Minister then responsible for new towns, Lord Skelmersdale. We played that video in front of that tenant representative after he had told the Minister


how fair the council had been in putting its argument. It was the equivalent of a video nasty. A little old lady was shown coming into an office with a letter some 8 ft long which was supposed to demonstrate the size of the rent increases that the wicked Conservative Government and the wicked housing association had set. Such is the irresponsible frightening nonsense that we have had to put up with from the socialist council.

Mr. Battle: That is not true.

Mr. Amess: Yes, it is. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman does not know the issues and he does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Raynsford: Would the hon. Gentleman like to confirm to the House that in the past four years the average rents of housing associations have risen by 107 per cent.—that is according to the core monitoring figures produced by the National Federation of Housing Associations—while the income of housing association tenants has increased by 25 per cent? Would he recognise that council rents have also been pushed up, ahead of the rate of inflation, as a direct result of Government policy? Does he accept that his remarks are inappropriate, bearing in mind the Government's responsibility for forcing up the rents of those who are tenants of councils and housing associations?

Mr. Amess: I do not accept that; presumably that was also the feeling of the electors in 1987 in Fulham.
The socialist council wreaked havoc, worry and fear, particularly among elderly tenants, for purely political reasons. It should be absolutely ashamed of itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) mentioned capital receipts and it is worth noting that that socialist council, through its disgraceful behaviour, lost for the residents of Basildon between £80 million and £100 million in capital receipts by not taking over dwellings and leaving them with the CNT.
The Basildon Community Housing Association is a home-grown one whose members are non-political. The BCHA also handles the Siporex estate, which is home to 830 low-quality properties. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that that housing association is planning to do everything possible to bring that estate and the Cosmos housing in Vange up to standard.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West met a number of individuals in Basildon and put his argument, but he should note that the rent of the CNT tenant who opts to transfer to the BCHA will not increase until October 1994. It will then only rise by the rate of inflation until October 1997. After that, the association aims to set a rent increase of not more than 2.5 per cent. above inflation. Under the Government I have no doubt that the inflation rate will be extremely low. That is a cast-iron guarantee and it will be part of a legal agreement between BCHA and the CNT. That will ensure its delivery.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West has said in the House today and to my constituents that they should look for a copper-bottomed guarantee on rent. I understand that, but as BCHA is the only body able to offer such a guarantee, one would have expected the hon. Gentleman to advise my constituents to vote for transfer to that

association. The council cannot give a rent guarantee as its finances are decided year by year. One could speculate about possible rent increases for council tenants.
I know that the hon. Member for Leeds, West also had something to say to my constituents about repairs, but BCHA has guaranteed that it will deal with all major repairs within five years. Again, that guarantee will be subject to a legal agreement with the CNT. The association will also employ local contractors and will seek to create employment and training opportunities for local residents through such work. It will maintain, inside and out, the homes of those who opt to transfer to it.
One need only look at Basildon council estates—for example, Craylands—and talk to the tenants to see that the council, when it was socialist, had a shameful record of neglect. Those socialists who ran the council chamber misled and confused people about the difference between commission and council houses. If the hon. Member for Leeds, West had been better briefed he would have known about that.
When in Basildon, the hon. Member for Leeds, West talked about tenants' rights, as is the socialist way. Apparently he talked about the benefits of protected assured tenancies as opposed to secure tenancies, but tenancies will be no less secure under the BHCA and tenants will certainly not lose their rights.
The local Labour party and its friends in the tenants action group are now putting considerable effort into the ballot. I understand that they are saying that when they regain control of the council everything will go back to how it used to be. God help my constituents if everything goes back to how it used to be. My constituents certainly do not want things to go back to how they used to be, which is why the socialist council was thrown out last year.
There is to be a by-election in five weeks' time, not for a Conservative seat, but for a Labour seat. There are only 13 socialists left on Basildon council. The socialist councillor who came in with bright ideas has thrown in the towel as he cannot take the fight any more. He has emigrated to New Zealand, and rumours abound that the leader of the Labour group, who works at the treasury department in Walworth road, has decided that he will no longer stand. One by one, the socialists responsible for destroying community life—they tried to do so, but were unsuccessful in Basildon—are throwing in the towel and running off.
When the Conservatives took control of the council last May, they we are left with hardly enough money to collect the refuse, let alone concentrate on housing. The socialists appointed a number of politically motivated council employees, which was an absolute disgrace. Officers should always be politically neutral and independent. It is not for officers to make political decisions, but for the elected representatives. It is quite wrong for local government officers to become party political. If they do not like what the Conservative council is currently doing, they should leave with good grace.
When I hear interventions from Opposition Members trying to laugh at housing associations—[interruption] If they are laughing at me, I am delighted. Their arrogance in laughing at me shows that they have learnt absolutely nothing from their defeat in the last general election, which is good news for my hon. Members.

Mr. Battle: Hon. Members?

Mr. Amess: My hon. Friends. I know that the hon. Member for Leeds, West is starting to become uncomfortable. That is entirely understandable after the things that I have said today.
When the Conservatives took over the council, they found themselves in a difficult position as there were a number of politically motivated local government officers. Such officers should be entirely neutral and should not make political decisions. It is quite wrong for them to do so.
At present, the Conservative-controlled council is doing a magnificent job in difficult circumstances. As the present chairman of housing has said, it is extraordinary that the Labour council, as it was until last May, promised for years to take over the CNT properties, but did not. It has taken a Conservative council to do so—and it has taken a socialist Member of Parliament to visit my constituency and advise my constituents to vote in favour of a Conservative council.
I shall not give my constituents any advice about how they should vote in the ballot as that is entirely a matter for them. They will not take lectures from any hon. Members, whatever their political party. My colleagues and I will be vigilant to see whether any intimidation takes place during the ballot. If any socialists visit elderly people's homes, as they have done over the past 10 years, to collect ballot papers and mislead people, I shall ensure that the severest action is taken against those socialists.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: How does one follow the speech of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess)'? It will be quite difficult. I shall begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on securing the debate on an important subject that involves one of the most dreadful problems facing any individual or family in this country: the prospect of not having a decent home in which to live.
There are some things in life that we should be able to take for granted, and having a roof over our heads is one of them. I am sure that many hon. Members can recite many examples of the tragedies facing constituents who come to their advice surgeries, hoping that their Member of Parliament can help them to find a decent home. The people that I meet in Lewisham, East are not asking for very much. They simply want a decent home, with space for their children to grow and play, where they can feel secure and get on with the rest of their lives. That is something that we would all expect for ourselves and we all hope to try to achieve for our constituents. However, too many people spend years on waiting lists. They live in overcrowded and sub-standard accommodation with little prospect of anything better. If they are young and single, their chances are even less.
I shall concentrate on the position in London and the horrendous housing crisis in the nation's capital. There are more than 40,000 families in temporary accommodation in London. That probably means that about 100,000 children have no permanent home. That number has been steadily increasing every year for the past 11 years. It may surprise Conservative Members to learn that two-thirds of all temporary accommodation in this country used for homeless families is here in London.
Those figures, enormous as they are, do not tell the whole story. They do not include the single homeless who

are not counted in the statistics because, under the Housing Act 1985, their need is not considered a priority. I—and I dare say many of my colleagues—have to tell young people who visit the surgeries that they have little chance of being housed. Therefore, we now have on the streets of our capital city 2,000 people sleeping rough.

Mr. Streeter: The right hon. Lady, sorry, the hon. Lady —I am sure that that was a premonition on my part—mentioned people coming to her surgery asking for advice. Does she ever recommend that they approach housing associations or seek accommodation in the private sector, or does she—like many, if not all, of her colleagues—think only of council houses and believe that nothing else will do?

Mrs. Prentice: I certainly advise those people who come to my surgery of the realities of life and the housing problems that they face under the Conservative Government. I advise them to seek housing association nominations. Lewisham council and its local housing associations work closely together, and the council nominates people to housing association lists. I advise people to seek accommodation in the private rented sector, but they tell me that it is difficult because of the amount of money initially required. People have to pay lump sums that they simply do not have in their pockets, so it is nonsense to suggest that they should use the private rented sector.
Some 5,000 people are in bed and breakfast accommodation which is often poor quality. There are 15,000 people in short-life property and 17,000 in hostels. There are 80,000 people in London in overcrowded households. For any nation to admit to such figures is surely, at the very least, embarrassing. For Britain to do so, with 500,000 construction workers on the dole, is a national disgrace.
Homelessness is only the most obvious expression of the housing crisis in London. We should never forget the thousands of people living in poor and deteriorating housing—the overcrowded families, the people with disabilities trapped in their homes because access is poor or impossible, and the growing numbers of home owners facing mounting debt and repossession.
Let us examine what is happening here in our capital city. More than 1·1 million of London's homes are either unfit for human habitation or are fit but in need of serious renovation; 79 per cent. of the unfit houses—four out of five—are in the private sector. A quarter of a million households are on council waiting lists. Many of them are families with children, elderly people or people with disabilities who need specialist accommodation. More than 60,000 households in London are defined as seriously overcrowded, and about 110,000 council tenants are on council transfer lists.
These are staggering figures, yet in 1991–92 only 500 new homes were built by councils and a further 1,800 were made available through conversion and renovation. To call that a drop in the ocean is an understatement.
London's councils could house only 9,000 families and enable another 17,000 to move. At that rate it will take 25 years to house the people already on waiting lists and another six and a half years to transfer existing council tenants. The fact is, however, that these people will not be


rehoused, because others with more pressing needs will join them, every day of every week of every year, in every London borough.
I have already said that the numbers of families in temporary accommodation continue to rise. That is because London's councils are accepting about 38,000 families—as they did in 1991–92—but can provide accommodation for only about 25,000 of them.
We tend to think of the housing crisis as affecting only those who want to rent. That is simply untrue. Although repossessions have slowed a little in the past year, the number of people in arrears has markedly increased. According to some figures, about £169 million is owed to building societies in mortgage arrears. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston spoke about negative equity. Four out of 10 of the people in London who bought their homes between 1988 and 1991 have an average negative equity of £5,500—yet prices continue to fall, and although building societies are beginning to accept lower repayments, I fear that as unemployment relentlessly rises their goodwill will soon disappear and people will be out on the streets.
So what is to be done? Clearly, the Government do not know, and the hon. Member for Basildon has even less understanding of the housing crisis.

Mr. Miller: He has left.

Mrs. Prentice: Having delivered his polemic, the hon. Gentleman has indeed disappeared from the debate.
The Government have made no plans to deal with the problems of homelessness in London. They have not even conducted a survey of London's housing needs. Instead, we have been showered with publicity about two initiatives which do no more than recycle existing public spending. I agree that they have been worthwhile initiatives, but they can hardly be considered adequate. They have had only a marginal impact on the situation in the capital.
First, there was the two-year £300 million homelessness programme, which at least recognised that there was a problem that needed dealing with. When it began, 31,485 families were in temporary accommodation. When it finished, 37,058 households were in temporary accommodation—hardly a startling success. It is tragic that nothing has replaced that programme. Despite the best efforts of the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association, the Department of the Environment has resisted any increase in the share of resources to councils and housing associations in line with levels of homelessness.
Then there was the rough sleepers initiative, with £96 million provided over three years, followed by another £60 million. I agree that the initiative reduced the numbers of people on the streets in central areas of London, but it did not solve the problem. About 1,500 permanent places were found, together with some temporary beds in hostels. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), a recognised expert on this subject, will probably say if he has the opportunity to speak, we need about 10,000 permanent places for single homeless people to stop the hostels being clogged up with people who cannot move to more permanent accommodation.
Another aspect affecting particularly London, and perhaps other areas too, is that of refugees. The

Government have done nothing to help councils in this respect. My constituency contains about 41 households with refugee status and recognised as homeless, but the Government have offered no help to councils with refugees on their lists.
The same questions can be asked about the Government's help for homeless former home owners, and the same reply will be heard. The Government have done little or nothing for them. London has been the scene of the greatest number of repossessions, and the mortgage rescue schemes, which have flopped, have done nothing to help these people, who bought their homes during the 1980s and earlier. The Government refused to talk to councils or lenders about resolving the problem.
The autumn statement, which concluded the housing market package of about £570 million for housing associations, would provide in London only about 3,500 houses—less than a year's increase in the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation. Because of the tight rules, the associations have found it very difficult to buy enough cheap properties in high-cost areas—the very ones in which there is the most acute need of affordable rented accommodation.
The London boroughs have tried hard to come to terms with the problem, co-operating with one another in trying to deal with homelessness. They have cut down on the use of bed and breakfast; Lewisham borough council does not use it at all. They have expanded private sector leasing schemes—from fewer than 3,000 in 1988 to about 24,000 today. They have tried to cut the costs of bed-and-breakfast accommodation by implementing a pricing policy and an hotels inspection and grading system. And they have made new arrangements with the housing associations so that they have many more nominations. They also provide hostel and winter shelters for single homeless people and fund voluntary sector homelessness projects.
What the councils need—like the homeless of London—is just a little help and support from the Government. The Government will reply, "We are letting councils use their capital receipts until December of this year," but that is no great shakes when we remember that, because of the recession, sales of land and homes have declined and prices are depressed. Much of what councils can sell has already been sold at discounts to housing associations and tenants. The Government are clawing back the receipts in any case through the estate action schemes and urban programmes. If they really wanted to give a serious boost to the economy they would free up the £5·1 billion of accumulated receipts.
Even the distribution of receipts that we have will not be equal across the nation, and efforts will have to be made to target the areas in greatest need. London needs an agreed plan to reduce homelessness, drawn up by the Department of the Environment, local councils and others concerned about the crisis in the capital, and, after proper consultation, to set out precise targets and time scales.
Local councils and the voluntary sector should be given responsibility for implementing an expanded single homelessness programme to cover the capital. The Government should increase the priority attached to homelessness and temporary accommodation levels in allocating capital resources to councils and housing associations. They can do that simply by adopting the ALA—LBA proposal of a comprehensive homelessness indicator.
It is high time that the Government started talking sensibly with the London associations and revising arrangements for the winter shelter programme by allowing shelters in outer London boroughs such as Croydon and Newham, where there was clearly a need in the past year but no funding. They should change the private sector leasing scheme to allow councils to take up to 20-year leases instead of phasing out the grant that meets a portion of the cost of those leases. They should work jointly with councils and lenders to plan a range of initiatives to support home owners. There must be a specific grant to assist in rehousing refugees.
I said that it was rather tragic that we should have to have a debate on housing in a society where having a roof over one's head is something that we all take for granted. I repeat my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston on raising the subject, and I am only sorry that such a tale of neglect and dereliction of duty must be laid squarely at the Government's door.

Mr. Hartley Booth: My name appears on the Order Paper under a different topic—victims support. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on being lucky enough to win the draw, in which I came second.
We are debating an issue of multiple sadness and deprivation. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) spoke of the problems of splitting relationships and how marriages break down so often. We are talking about the victims of crime and the victims of housing. I shall talk about the problems experienced by victims of crime because they relate directly to the issue of housing. Hon. Members will be glad to hear that 1 have torn up my speech on the victims of crime.
It should be the first duty of every criminal court to consider victims before passing sentence. At present, it is the last duty of a criminal court to consider victims, who are very much an afterthought. I want offenders to be brought directly into the system to pay for—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying very hard to steer a thin line, but he is straying from the subject of housing. If he can keep his remarks to that he will be in order.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful for your correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Reference has been made to the 80,000 void properties under local authority control and the 400,000 private sector void properties, rather than the 600,000 quoted by Opposition Members. Those properties offer scope to deal with housing and social problems. Crime and housing need are linked evils of society. It is one of life's ironies that the criminal often targets the weakest members of society, and often those who already have housing problems. Under an advanced criminal justice system, and in a civilised nation, with the right housing priorities, we must put the interests of the victim first. That is why I rise to add my contribution, and I am grateful for being allowed to make this intervention on behalf of such sufferers.

Mr. Nigel Jones: I shall be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the housing crisis and congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on securing the debate. I am in two minds about whether I should have preferred a debate on victims of crime as my constituency office was broken into over the weekend.
Hon. Members will remember that our last opportunity to debate the housing crisis was on a Liberal Democrat Opposition day on 16 November.

Mr. Hendry: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since that date the Committee considering the Housing and Urban Development Bill has sat for many weeks? Will he explain why he, as his party's spokesman, has not bothered to turn up?

Mr. Jones: Yes, I am happy to explain my actions to the hon. Member. He will remember that on Second Reading my party voted for the Bill because of a conversation that I had with a Minister, whom I shall not name as he is not present. He asked for our support to send a strong message to the Dukes, who opposed leasehold reform. I told the Minister that I was not in favour of the Bill and that most of it was bad, with one or two good bits. The Minister told me that he would be prepared to consider amendments in Committee. I put that to my colleagues, and my Scottish colleagues in particular were dead against believing anything that Ministers said. I, being a new Member, told them that as it was only Second Reading I was prepared to recommend that they vote for the Bill in the hope that some amendments would be passed. In the first five sittings of the Committee, I attempted to pass some amendments, including some to make the Scottish aspects of the Bill separate from its other provisions. I also attempted to amend its leasehold provisions. The Minister declined to accept those amendments.

Mr. Banks: He stitched you up.

Mr. Jones: I felt stitched up—

Mr. Banks: Never trust a Tory.

Mr. Jones: —and decided to concentrate on other duties. In future, I shall never trust a Tory.

Mr. Tony Banks: That's the stuff. It was a good lesson.

Mr. Jones: Our housing problems are entirely of the Government's own making. Their obsession with home ownership, their neglect of other tenures and their assault on local authorities have compounded the problems caused by the recession, which the Government created through their economic incompetence. They have caused a dangerous imbalance of tenure in the housing market. In 1992, repossessions fell from 75,000 to 68,000. That was a welcome improvement, but it was still 68,000 human disasters. However, mortgage arrears increased and, according to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, 205,000 households were six to 12 months behind in their mortgages in the second part of 1992 and 147,000 were over one year in arrears.
Negative equity, when houses are worth less than the mortgage on them, is also spiralling, with an estimated 1·5 million households stuck in that trap. Hon. Members will


have seen the report in last Friday's issue of "Mortgage Weekly", of the paper that Daniel Dorling of the housing and society research group at Newcastle university presented to the European housing finance seminar at Bristol university on 4 February. Mr. Dorling said:
The rise of negative equity is now preventing individuals from spending, and reducing the mobility of skilled labour. It has halted the widespread use of homes as assets upon which capital can be raised for investment. It is preventing people from moving house when they need to. Freedom of movement—freedom to choose where to live—is being eroded by the inefficient operation of the supposedly free market.
He also said about the way people look at housing:
Many now see it neither as a worthwhile gamble nor a secure investment, despite most houses being much less expensive now than a few years ago and the overall cost of home buying being at its lowest level in real terms since 1971.
Public housing has been hit by the Government's inept housing policy. Public spending on housing has been cut by 62 per cent. since 1979 from £11·5 billion to under £6 billion. It is no wonder that fewer than 170,000 new homes are being completed a year—an all-time low. With massive repossessions and a huge homelessness problem, local authorities have to pick up the pieces, but they no longer have the ability to do so. Some 150,000 people were accepted as homeless in 1991 and 8,000 people sleep rough every night. The Government's response is to encourage further reductions in public housing stock.
The Government must allow local authorities to spend their accrued capital receipts, so that they can start building homes for the homeless. In the autumn statement, the Government tried to boost the housing market by giving money to housing associations to buy repossessed properties. This has not happened. Out of 13,169 properties purchased up to 29 January, only 5,000 have been repossessed properties. The rest have been new build. In my constituency, only three properties have been purchased. I spoke to a senior estate agent this weekend and asked him what he thought about that. He said, "Three hundred might put a bottom in the market, but three is useless."
What is needed is not piecemeal panic projects but a coherent housing strategy. We need a sector—in between renting and owner-occupation—of shared ownership, to encourage flexibility in the market. We need new co-operation between local authorities, Government and housing associations to tackle the appalling problem of homelessness. Capital receipts must be released. Most of all, we need a Government with a coherent economic policy to encourage recovery and invest in infrastructure and housing projects. Until that happens, we shall still have a massive housing problem, and an economy in slump with hundreds of thousands of building workers on the dole—

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: No. I am just about to finish my speech. Building homes is the key to recovery and it is about time that the Government got on with that job.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I had hoped to come to the debate to make common cause with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller)

because I appreciate that there are Opposition Members, as there are Government Members, who are genuinely concerned about housing issues. I was looking forward to hearing some suggestions as to what we can do, in addition to the many things that the Government are already doing, to meet those needs; I was looking forward to hearing new ideas that would help to solve the problems. Having listened intently to two hours of the debate, I remain disappointed in what I have heard from the Opposition.
We never hear any solutions from the Opposition. All that we get are moans, gripes and complaints. There is never a single costing to be had. They talk about policies and the need for more public housing and more council houses, but they do not speak of the cost of such housing. The only constructive suggestion from the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Prentice) was that we should set up a talking shop to allow various bodies to discuss what should be done. The Government are already seeking and finding solutions to meeting housing needs in 1993.
The Labour party does not know what it wants. All that it knows is that it is in favour of more but it has no idea how much more will cost. That can be demonstrated better than in any other way by taking the example of the endless calls for the release of the £5 billion worth of capital receipts. Has the Labour party explained to community charge payers the extra cost that they will have to bear when the interest on capital receipts that rolls into local authorities year after year is no longer there? There is never a word about that.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston dismissed quickly, in half a sentence, the massive contribution made to social housing problems by Labour-controlled local authorities. Everything is the Government's fault, he said. I am afraid that it is not as simple as that. We cannot write off millions of pounds of rent arrears that Labour-controlled authorities have clocked up. We cannot disregard the countless thousands of void properties, even those in London about which the hon. Member for Lewisham, East was concerned. Many of those empty properties are controlled by Labour local authorities. What solutions do Labour Members have? What pressure are they bringing to bear on those authorities to cause them to get their act together?

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: While the hon. Gentleman is having a go at Labour local authorities in London, will he remind himself of Government Departments that have massive numbers of empty properties in London, particularly in areas such as Hammersmith and Fulham, where both Defence and Home Office properties are lying empty, and have been for as many years as I can remember?

Mr. Streeter: Once again, the Labour party will not accept responsibility. It will not go to Labour-controlled local authorities with solutions to the problems of the homeless. They always want to throw mud at the Government when they must accept responsibility for their part in housing problems.
The truth is that 4·2 million properties are still in local authority ownership and until Labour-controlled authorities get their act together, many of the problems suffered by homeless people will continue to be the result of the actions of Labour-controlled authorities. They do not come to the debate with clean hands.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree, given all that is said by Opposition Members about homelessness, that if they were to come to the north-west, which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) knows well, and to once-proud cities such as Liverpool and Manchester, they would see that we are talking not merely about hundreds of houses but about thousands of houses boarded up? Does he also agree that those houses could be used for the homeless if only the uncollected rents in those cities, together with the revenue from the sale of council properties this year, were diverted into improving them?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Furthermore, if Labour authorities collected their rents and used that money to do their repairs, the lot of many council tenants would be far better. We recognise that we are talking not just about statistics. We do not want merely to rattle off the number of empty properties and the millions of pounds worth of rent arrears. We know that behind each of those situations is a human tragedy. It is a pity that Opposition Members do not also recognise that.
We have heard no solution, no new ideas and no new thoughts. No questions have been answered. It is clear that the intellectual agenda on housing is still being set by the Conservative party. After 14 years of head scratching. the Labour party has failed to produce a new agenda. It has produced no exciting new ideas. Instead, we have been told this afternoon that it wants to return to local authority domination. In other words, Labour Members want to return power to Labour-controlled authorities. It is no solution to throw more money at the problem.
Those of us who have some local authority experience know that local authority housing has inherent weaknesses and few incentives for excellence. Traditionally, there has been no competition in that sector. Similarly, there has been virtually no accountability and regulation. Those are features that the Conservative party is seeking to build into the system. It is these principles that will cause standards to rise. That is what my right hon. and hon. Friends want. It is only a pity that Opposition Members cannot agree.

Mr. Raynsford: It is fascinating to hear the hon. Gentleman talking about competition, regulation and other such factors. The Opposition believe that there is a simpler solution to the problem, and that is to build more houses. When will the hon. Gentleman talk about providing enough houses to meet the present need? My right hon. and hon. Friends know that that is what is required if the homeless are to be put into homes.

Mr. Streeter: It is disappointing to hear the hon. Gentleman banging the same drum day after day. Has not he yet heard that through public sector investment this year the Government have ensured that more than 55,000 new homes will be provided for people to rent? That is a colossal achievement. Why do not Labour Members congratulate the Government on that achievement? Instead, they continue to gripe and ask for more.
Interest rates now stand at 6 per cent. For many mortgage holders the benefit of that low rate is yet to come through the system. In my discussions with estate agents in Plymouth—

Mr. Tony Banks: Ho!

Mr. Streeter: I wonder why the hon. Member, who seems to be responsible for causing trouble, scoffs. It is important to understand that estate agents in Plymouth

have a vital voice and one that should be echoed in the debate. They have told me that since Christmas there has been much activity in the housing market. It appears that first-time buyers are viewing properties and making offers. Contracts are being exchanged and the housing market is beginning to recover. It is fair to say that the recovery began before the full benefit of recent interest rate cuts started to manifest itself to many mortgage holders. We can look forward with confidence to the market recovering in the spring.
We all agree that the housing market is an essential ingredient in the economy. It is a pity that the only contribution that Labour Members can make is to talk the market down. They spend day after day and week after week talking it down. Instead, let us talk up the market. As I have said, it is recovering. There is every reason why it should be because mortgage rates are at an all-time low. Since October 1990, the repayments of the average mortgage holder have been reduced by more than £150 a month. That is a success story. People have been enabled to put money in their pockets and to go out and spend.
What about the autumn statement, which contained an extra package for social housing? That was designed to get the market moving again. It was a package of £750 million, and 20,000 properties were purchased by housing associations throughout the country to rent. Have we heard Labour Members welcome that? Have they offered the Government any congratulations? We have heard not a word. They are always sneering and never congratulating.
The Conservative party has been setting the housing agenda for the past 14 years. We have seen the right to buy, right to manage, right to repair, compulsory competitive tendering, rents to mortgages and the boost that was given to housing associations by the autumn statement. All of those initiatives have been taken at the behest of the Conservative Government. In contrast, the Labour party looks barren and sterile as it presents its old ideas.
I rarely agree with the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) but on one point—it is a serious one—I must do so. In a recent article that was written for the Fabian Society, the hon. Gentleman stated that the Labour party was "sleep-walking into oblivion." On that note of agreement, I resume my place.

Mr. John Battle: Many outside the House will not know or understand the internal lottery system which enables Back-Bench Members to win space in the parliamentary timetable to debate a topic of their choice on the Floor of the House. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on choosing to debate the housing crisis. In so doing, he has ensured that housing and homelessness in his constituency and throughout the country are firmly on our agenda. In his thorough approach he underlined the need to consider need, health and disability under the heading of housing. He stressed that such issues should be taken seriously and echoed on the floor of the House more regularly. I am sure that he will continue ensuring that that happens on the basis of his contribution today. We are indebted to him for the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) expressed passionate concern and a deep knowledge of housing in London. She spelled out the


bleak prospects which face her constituents and many thousands of others in London unless the Government are jolted out of their rather complacent approach to the housing crisis.
It is almost a year since we were presented with the Tories' election promises. We heard tear-jerking threats as soundbites were issued. On 23 March, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—he is now the President of the Board of Trade—said:
House sales under the Conservatives are picking up. All this would change on 10th April if there were a Labour Government. The recovery in the housing market would be devastated just as it gets under way.
Of course, that was not true. The market was not picking up, and the recovery is still not under way a year later. On 31 March, the Prime Minister echoed the right hon. Gentleman when he said:
We're going to make life easier for people buying their home and our policies will mean a stronger housing market.
We all know something of the Prime Minister's ability to turn language inside out and to turn meanings on their head. Government policies in the past 12 months have resulted in a weaker housing market.
It seems that the stark reality is obvious to everyone except Conservative Members. Only this month, the former head of Wimpeys commented:
It is the worst recession I have experienced in my 42 years in the construction industry.
There is a crisis in the housing market, and it has been manufactured by escalating unemployment. Last year, 68,000 families had their homes repossessed., According to the latest figures presented by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, 147,000 families are more than 12 months in mortgage arrears and are staring eviction in the face. We are already hearing of people losing their homes because of secondary mortgages. Double glazing companies are causing people to lose their homes by calling in debts of as little as £500.
Over 1 million people cannot afford to move because their homes are worth less than the prices that they paid for them. They are caught in the negative equity trap described by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. In response, the Prime Minister talks about cash incentives in the Budget for first-time buyers to revive the housing market. Even today, however, there are printed leaks from the Treasury informing us that there may be a 5 per cent. increase in VAT on new home sales in next month's Budget. It seems that everyone except the Government acknowledges that escalating unemployment is undermining the housing market. The fear of redundancy holds families back from extending mortgage commitments. Millions are terrified that they may be just one payslip from redundancy. Faced with that economic insecurity, they dare not risk extending their long-term financial commitments.
Escalating unemployment—the figures this week will show another rise—is the primary cause of the crisis in the housing market and the homelessness in our society. What do we need? Although the Government's position is not clear, it is evident to everyone that there is a desperate shortage of rented housing, so the response to the crisis must be the right to rent. However, under Conservative Governments the only policy offered by one Housing Minister after another—there have been many in the past 14 years — has been the discounted right to buy.
That single policy instrument has dismantled any post-war consensus on housing. That deep-seated Tory obsession with tenure has led to almost 2 million rented homes disappearing since 1987. Over the same period, there has been a fall in the number of houses built by local authorities and housing associations. The result is a massive imbalance in tenure. At 69 per cent. of the stock, home ownership is proving difficult to sustain. In other words, there is a desperate shortage of decent, affordable and secure housing to rent.
There are 1·5 million families stuck on local authority housing waiting lists. We must not forget the hidden homeless who share sofas and floors while they wait for their own space. The Institute of Housing, Shelter and the Audit Commission have spelt out the fact that each year there is a shortfall of 100,000 homes to rent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, on the best estimates, the Government are providing only slightly more than half that number this year. Local councils have been sidelined, undermined and prevented from providing homes.
In the latest Department of the Environment annual report, published only last week, the projections for housing under the housing investment programme capital provisions show a decline of £325 million between 1992–93 and 1995–96. That is an actual cut in housing budgets, taken out of housing programmes, of £100 million a year.
Housing associations still have only 3 per cent. of Britain's housing stock, yet they have been given the task, practically on their own, of filling the enormous gap of need. Despite that, day by day they are being undermined by Government changes in the rate of grant. This year it is down from 73 per cent. to 67 per cent. and it appears that next year it will go down further to 60 per cent. and the year after to 55 per cent. What will be the result of that cut in grants? Housing associations will have to borrow more money from the private finance sector, so rents will have to rise beyond the incomes of those not receiving full housing benefit.
By those reductions in the rate of grant, the Government are ensuring that housing associations will be turned into providers of welfare housing with a vengeance. They will soon be putting signs in windows saying, "Rooms to let: DSS only—apply within." Some 70 per cent. of housing association tenants are on housing benefit, yet rents are still rising. It is tragic. The Government are also building in a work disincentive. They are saying to those on housing benefit, "You can afford to rent a housing association property, but don't get a job because that will take you out of full housing benefit, you will not be able to afford the rent and you will lose your flat."
The Government must deal with the problem of housing benefit. The latest Department of Social Security report, also published last week, shows that the amount spent on rent in the housing association and private rented sector has doubled. A real poverty trap is built into the system for those who are not on housing benefit. Their homes are at risk because they have to spend more than their incomes to meet the rent demanded. I hope that the Government will begin to deal with the problem of affordability. A report from the Housing Corporation was discreetly placed in the Library. I hope that the Government will provide a full debate on affordability because under their policies housing association houses are becoming beyond most people's means.
Homelessness has more than doubled since 1979. A record number of 65,000 families are now in temporary accommodation. They are wondering whether "temporary" actually means for the rest of their lives. I recently met a young woman called Michelle who had been moved across London, away from her family and friends, when she was taken out of bed and breakfast. She lost her daughter's creche place and she lost access to her training course. She said that she felt like an exile from her community. She wants to get out of temporary and into permanent accommodation among her family and friends so that she can rebuild her life and find a job.
The crisis in temporary accommodation is tragic. I accept that the number of people in bed and breakfast is falling, which is welcome, but the problem cannot be solved simply by putting people into temporary accommodation. They need permanent secure housing where they can build basic communities with their friends and their families.
I remind the Minister for Housing and Planning that at the launch of the rough sleepers initiative he said that people sleeping on the streets of London would disappear by February 1992. It is now February 1993. If, when we leave the House tonight, we walked the streets of London, we would still meet many homeless people. Just before Christmas, late one night, I left the House and I spoke to some homeless youngsters. I was shocked because when I asked them how old they were, those who were confident enough to answer did not say that they were in their 20s or 30s—certainly they were not, as in the past, older people broken by war or alcohol—they said that they were 16. That suggests that many of them were not 16, but younger. I was shocked that youngsters of 16 were on the streets of London.
Another factor was important. When I asked them where they last lived, most of them said that they had been in local authority care. That care runs out at 16 and those youngsters have to fend for themselves. The Government have a responsibility to deal with the problems of youngsters of 16 who come out of local authority care but are then left to fend for themselves and so end up on the streets. I shall return to that point later.

Mr. Hendry: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when children come out of care at the age of 16, local authorities have an obligation to keep any eye on them until they are 21? In addition, 16 and 17-year-olds coming out of care are entitled to income support.

Mr. Battle: I accept and welcome the fact that the Government included that provision in the Children Act 1989. However, we raised a problem in Committee on that Bill which was not resolved by the Government and which is now manifesting itself on the streets. How does a local authority keep track of those youngsters if they move to another borough, town or city? That is causing a real problem with the operation of the Act. Local authorities cannot comb other boroughs looking for homeless youngsters.
There have been changes in the benefit rules which I believe have been the cause of some of the homelessness among young people.

Mr. David Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 100,000 local authority

dwellings empty, of which 18,000 are in London? Is it not political dogma which keeps those dwellings empty deliberately to cause hardship to the homeless?

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking such an interest in that matter. I urge him to investigate it in more detail and to check the facts and figures. More than half the empty properties in London have been listed as defective by the Government and are therefore included in demolition programmes. Nevertheless, those properties appear in the figures for empty properties. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we put homeless families into properties which are unfit to live in and due for demolition.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Battle: No, I must move on. I want to give the Minister time to reply.
In our society there are 80,000 single homeless people. We now face the introduction of care in the community, without the proper backing. The Minister should remember the line in the White Paper:
Housing is the key to independent living.
Unless the resources to provide such housing are passed on to local authorities, we shall face increasing homelessness among the most marginalised members of our society—those who may be discharged from hospitals. It will stare us in the face from 1 April this year.
I could echo some of the local comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. In Yorkshire, homelessness has risen by 60 per cent. in the past six years; in Leeds, there has been a 34 per cent. increase in homelessness inquiries between 1988–89 and 1991–92. Last year, there were 10,000 inquiries; 10,000 people applied for housing, and were registered as homeless. A total of 24,000 households are on waiting lists; the figure is up 30 per cent. since 1983–84.
In 1980–81, Leeds city council built 1,200 homes; in 1991–92, it could build only 18. That is a telling figure. There is not enough housing to rent. The council was not even able to replace the housing that it had lost through sales, including housing association accommodation. Although homes are now coming from housing associations in partnership with the local authority, the authority is not being allowed to use capital receipts to replace the rented housing that has been lost. It is no wonder that people are homeless. One third of the homeless people in Leeds have been in care, and those people are vulnerable.
The Government should examine, across Departments, the desperate need for supported accommodation for young people. The private market is not providing it, and housing associations have been priced out of special needs. Who will provide those homes? The Government's cool complacency reflects a chillingly barren policy, and an absence of real, co-ordinated housing action. The housing crisis is frozen in the permafrost of the economic recession which is gripping the country.
The real dereliction, as will be revealed when the English house conditions survey is published later this year, is the dereliction of duty by a Government and a Minister attempting to sustain an image of competence from day to day, floated on daily departmental press releases as one phoney piecemeal initiative after another is launched, sinks and is launched again. Two weeks ago, for instance, we received a press release telling us of the virtues


of the "flats over shops" initiative. Last week, the annual report of the Department of the Environment told us that there would be nothing in the 1995–96 budget programme. We are told that the capital partnership initiative has a future, but the annual report provides nothing in the 1994–95 budget.
Action could be taken, however. I will put a five-point action plan to the Minister. First, more rented housing should be provided. On every working day since June 1979, 600 building workers have lost their jobs; they have continued to do so, yet there are fields full of bricks in Bedfordshire. The need is there, the skills are there, the materials are there and the resources are there; yet £5–7 billion is locked up in capital receipts. That money could be used to provide housing. The Government refuse to link jobs and housing, which flies in the face of ordinary common sense. The Government can and must provide more rented housing. What is needed is a housing need package, not a housing market package.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to extend the rough sleepers initiative beyond London. Sixty per cent. of those sleeping rough are on the streets of Brighton, Bristol and other towns and cities throughout the land. Thirdly, the Government should immediately restore income support for 16 and 17-year-olds, which was removed by the present Prime Minister in 1988. The removal of that benefit is increasingly seen as a cause of homelessness among young people.
Fourthly, the Government should publish and use the English house conditions survey, which will s how that nearly 1.5 million properties are now in serious disrepair. They should use it as a renovation and renewal charter, change the failed means-tested improvement grant system and ensure that the construction industry is free of the increases in value-added tax on building repairs that we are told the Budget may contain. Such increases would drive the construction industry even further back.
Fifthly, the Government could support and publicise a real mortgage rescue scheme. I suggest that the Minister take a look at the Bradford and Bingley building society, and support fully mutual housing associations which allow families to remain in their own homes and be charged rent. The Government should support mortgage-to-rent schemes rather than rent-to-mortgage schemes.
To sum up my five points for action, I suggest more rented housing, an extension of the rough sleepers scheme, the restoration of income support for youngsters, the use of the English house conditions survey for renewal and improvement, and support for real mortgage rescue schemes. Too many people are being denied the basic right to a decent, affordable and secure home.
The current housing crisis is the most vivid symbol of the failure of the free market myth. What is needed is real choice, not just abuse of the word. Without real choice between tenures, which must include the right to rent, millions will remain locked out of decent housing that they can call a home of their own.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has done his party

a favour. He has done something that his Front Bench has not seemed willing to do since the general election: he has initiated a debate on housing.
The hon. Gentleman's initiative stands in stark contrast to the utterances of hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, who seem more concerned with attacking the royal family than with debating housing. I am not surprised about that, because Opposition Front-Bench Members never seem to mention housing. A recent speech by the Leader of the Opposition, supposedly outlining Labour's agenda for the next decade, completely failed to mention housing. As for the recent interview in Tribune with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who graced us with a fleeting appearance a moment ago, he told us last week that the entire interview was tape recorded by the author. He then told the House that the direct quotation of any words was correct; the only problem was that the article made no mention of housing.
Why, then, is housing off Labour's agenda? Simply because Labour has no policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) made clear in his excellent speech, little by little over the past decade Labour has come to accept, and then to endorse, our policies. That applies to the right to buy, housing action trusts and the ability of councils to transfer their stock to housing associations. All those policies were once bitterly opposed by Labour authorities; all are now embraced by them. Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets, Hull, Birmingham and Liverpool—all those councils, Labour and Liberal, are now promoting housing action trusts in their areas. The Opposition would have denied those opportunities to thousands of tenants.
The hon. Member for Blackburn boasted to Tribune, "We run urban Britain." Perhaps that is another reason why Labour says nothing about housing: the nation will look at Labour's housing record, which is lousy, as tellingly illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). He described how ill served Basildon's housing interests were under a Labour council.
We, by contrast, have much to offer when it comes to housing. Therefore, I welcome the debate. It enables the Government to reinforce their determination that a decent home should be within the reach of every family and our determination to promote owner-occupation, to widen choice for tenants, to encourage further private investment in the rented sector and to increase the supply of decent homes for rent.

Mr. Miller: The Minister keeps criticising Labour authorities. I gave him a specific example and was very careful about the language that I used. Can the Minister spell out precisely, here and now, what my local authority of Ellesmere Port and Neston should do and where it has gone wrong?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman might reflect upon the fact that, at the end of 1990–91, Ellesmere Port's accumulated debt in rent arrears amounted to nearly £500,000—£474,000, to be precise. I suspect that if the local authority had been more effective in collecting its rents, it would have been able to invest that money in local authority stock.
The opportunity to own a home and to pass it on is one of the most important rights that an individual has in a free society. We have extended that right. Home ownership lies at the heart of our philosophy. We want to see wealth and


security being passed down from generation to generation. Surveys show that owner-occupation is the preferred tenure of every age group from every background in every part of the country. Some 4 million more householders now own their own home compared with 1979. The number of former council tenants who have bought their homes has risen to nearly 1·5 million.
Recent house price reports show that encouraging signs of stability may now be returning to the housing market. At 6 per cent., interest rates are at their lowest for 15 years. Average mortgage rates are now 7 percentage points below their peak. Indeed, average mortgage rates are now at their lowest level since March 1969. With the latest cut in mortgage rates, reductions over the past two years have saved a family with a typical mortgage £160 a month. Home purchase is now more affordable and more attractive. The ratio of mortgage payments to income is at its most advantageous level for a quarter of a century. That must be good news for buyers and builders alike.
We are committed to making the aspiration o f home ownership a reality for as many households as possible. The right to buy for council tenants has become a resounding success. We are determined to continue to respond to people's aspiration to own their own home. Thousands of tenants have been able to take advantage of cash incentive payments that enable housing associations and local councils to help existing tenants to move into home ownership and free their current home for new tenants. All around the country, successful shared ownership schemes, supported by the Government, have enabled many more people to become home owners. We are determined to make it easier for those council tenants living in high cost areas or on low incomes to move gradually into home ownership without taking on too heavy a financial burden at any one time.
Our rent-to-mortgage scheme will give tenants a further route to home ownership. We care about council tenants who want to buy but who cannot afford to do so outright. We shall continue to drive for home ownership and make sure that tenants are aware of their new rights. Many tenants will consider that now is the time to take advantage of low prices, low interest rates and substantial discounts.
Of course we recognise that not everybody can or will want to buy their own home. Our aim is to ensure that a decent home is available to every family, whether it be owned, rented from a private landlord, or rented in the public sector. That means that encouraging and supporting home ownership is complemented by measures to increase availability and choice in rented housing, to target investment and support to those areas and to those people most in need and to ensure that the billions of pounds of taxpayers' money that we are investing and continue to invest in housing is put to the best possible use by improving the performance and value for money achieved by those who spend it.

Mr. Raynsford: On the Minister's point about the provision of affordable housing, he will be aware of the concern expressed about the grant rates for housing associations. He will also be aware that officials, giving evidence last Wednesday to the Select Committee, said that no decision had yet been taken about a reduction in grant rates. Bearing in mind that concern, will the Minister give the House an assurance tonight that there will not be

a reduction in grant rates that would lead to great increases in rents and serious affordability problems for housing association tenants?

Mr. Baldry: I thought that the hon. Gentleman intended in his intervention to explain why it was that at the end of 1991 Greenwich had rent arrears of £13 million. He will have seen from evidence of the Housing Corporation that there is no generic affordability problem for housing associations. Last week I was in the area of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston where concern was raised by a housing association about housing association grants and housing association rents. That same afternoon I visited a scheme in Manchester where six housing associations are providing good, affordable houses at housing association grant rates of 50 per cent. They are providing houses at rents which everybody recognises are affordable.
We are investing billions of pounds in housing. This year alone, more than £8 billion will be spent on social housing, most by local authorities but some £2.3 billion of it by the Housing Corporation, in providing new, affordable social housing through housing associations. New investment in housing received a significant boost in the autumn statement with the housing market package and the ability of local authorities to spend 100 per cent. of their capital receipts raised before the end of this year. That ability could, we believe, generate some £1–75 billion for local authorities. That is in addition to the money that will be given to them through the housing investment programme. Those figures are based on local authorities' own estimates of what they have raised and are likely to raise from capital receipts in 1992–93. All hon. Members should, therefore, ensure that their local authorities are seeking properly to maximise their capital receipts this year and putting them to good use.
The housing market package has been a great success. The Housing Corporation now estimates that the money for housing associations in England to buy new, empty and repossessed homes, announced as part of the overall £750 million housing market package, will allow the purchase of over 17,000 properties in England by the end of March. Nearly 15,000 purchases have already been approved. More than 90 per cent. of the original target of 16,000 houses has been achieved, using just over 80 per cent. of the available funds. Another 3,500 homes will be bought with the help of cash grants to existing tenants moving into ower-occupation. Taken together with the substantial fall in interest rates, the housing market package is having a positive impact on the housing market. The Housing Corporation and the housing associations involved are to be congratulated on their excellent performance in translating these substantial sums made available into new homes.
This financial year, and over the next three years, housing associations should have some £10.5 billion to invest in new social housing—£7.5 billion from the Treasury to the Housing Corporation, and £3 billion of private finance. In our manifesto we promised to provide 153,000 new affordable homes over three years to 1994–95. The Housing Corporation now estimates that it will be able substantially to improve upon that figure and to fund some 170,000 new homes over the same period.
Those new homes will go a long way towards improving matters for households accepted as homeless by local


authorities and currently living in temporary accommodation. Even before the autumn statement, the number of families housed in bed and breakfast accommodation was falling. It is down now to just over 11,000. I hope that local authorities, working with the housing associations, will now be able to bring these figures down even further. For those most visibly in housing need, we have extended the rough sleepers initiative, with a further £86 million being made available to the voluntary organisations which are managing the programme.
While housing associations are the main providers of new social housing, it is also important that we continue to invest in council housing as effectively as possible. This we are doing through the housing investment programme and large-scale schemes such as estate action and housing action trusts, which help to tackle some of our more difficult estates. Up and down the country this year we are spending £330 million on 360 estate action schemes. Next year the budget of £350 million will enable another 160 new schemes to start.
Estate action schemes enable money to be invested to turn rundown housing into areas where people can again be proud to live: where appropriate, tower blocks are pulled down and new family-designed homes are built; unpopular deck access blocks are converted into popular family homes; the quality of homes is improved with, where appropriate, new roofs, new wiring and new PVC windows; and areas of sterile public space in which no one has a sense of ownership are turned into gardens. The planners call that "defensible space". To all of us, and to the people who live in the area, that means gardens. Crime is designed out. There is better security—
It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

APPOINTMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF INTERIM TRUSTEE

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 38, leave out from ("shall") to ("appoint") in line 40.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7.

Mr. Stewart: This group of amendments was tabled in another place in response to concerns expressed by involvency practitioners that the Bill as it stood could create problems for some business debtors. The practitioners feared that such debtors would be unable to secure the immediate appointment of an interim trustee to manage the business while the sequestration process was proceeding.
In the light of those concerns, amendment No. 5 restores the position to that which presently applies under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 and allows the court to appoint an interim trustee without delay after the presentation of a debtor's petition. While amendment No. 6 retains the opportunity for the Accountant in Bankruptcy to make an early application for a certificate of summary administration, the other amendments make consequential drafting changes.
I acknowledge that a number of amendments were tabled by the Opposition in another place. I hope that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) will agree that the Opposition amendments were designed to achieve the same purpose as the Government amendments before the House. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Opposition amendments were withdrawn in favour of the Government amendments simply because the latter were technically accurate. I pay tribute to Opposition Members in another place for tabling their amendments.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank the Minister for his comments. In particular, I thank my colleagues in another place, particularly Lord Macaulay and Lord Carmichael, who were very vigilant when the legislation was last considered there.
I welcome the Minister's endorsement of the role of the Opposition in another place. However, will he explain the qualifications that the courts will consider necessary for the interim trustee? Are those qualifications consistent with the views of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland which sought, I thought successfully, to persuade the Minister to ensure that sequestration may be awarded forthwith after the presentation of a debtor's petition? No doubt the institute had in mind the role relevant to that of an interim trustee. Before we make a judgment on the package that the Minister has brought back from another place, I should be grateful if he would explain the role and qualifications of the interim trustee.

Mr. Stewart: I am happy to respond to the perfectly fair point made by the hon. Gentleman. I can confirm that the

Government have discussed with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland the arrangements for implementing the Bill. I assure the hon. Gentleman that an interim trustee, other than the Accountant in Bankruptcy himself or herself, must be an insolvency practitioner, as is the case under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.
We intend to introduce the provisions of the Bill so that the Accountant in Bankruptcy would be appointed the trustee in most small asset cases. The accountant would then retain a proportion of cases in-house, but allocate the remainder to insolvency practitioners on the same basis as under the 1985 Act.
Those cases would be allocated on a fixed-price basis. That would allow all concerned—the Accountant in Bankruptcy and the insolvency practitioners to whom the hon. Member for Monklands, West referred—the opportunity to gain experience under the new regime. That should permit a fairer comparison to be made between public sector and private sector provision when full market testing is undertaken.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has distinguished herself in written parliamentary questions —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to see the unanimity between the Labour party and the Scottish National party. The Scottish Liberals are not present and I do not see them rushing into the Chamber to take part in this very important debate. However, at least we have agreement—almost uniquely these days—between the Labour party and the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Moray played a major part in our considerations during the proceedings on the Bill.

Dr. John Reid: With due deference to the Minister, and although I do not want to correct his grammar, something cannot be "almost unique". It is either unique, or it is not. I hope that that will help with future speeches.

Mr. Stewart: I have received linguistic advice from the Government Whip, but I believe that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is correct, and I stand corrected.

Mr. Phil Gallie: It is good to hear that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is a bit better on his English than he was on his arithmetic in another place the other day.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend expresses himself with his customary robustness. However, I do not intend in this debate to arouse the hon. Member for Motherwell, North excessively. However, the hon. Member for Moray played a major and constructive part in our consideration of the subject in Committee. I believe that it would be generally agreed that the Committee stage was constructive.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am sorry that I missed the Minister's earlier exchanges with the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). Am Ito understand from the Minister's remarks that the Accountant in Bankruptcy will now almost put bankruptcy cases out to private tender? Will the top sum allocated be £600 or less?

Mr. Stewart: I am happy to respond to the hon. Lady and to confirm the exact position which follows the consultations over the summer between the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Accountant in Bankruptcy and the Scottish Office.
There will be an interim stage in 1993–94—let us take, for the sake of argument, the assumption that the Bill is implemented from the beginning of April—when experience can be gained of operating under the procedures in the Bill before proceeding to a full-blown market testing exercise. The intention is to bring in the provisions of the Bill so that the Accountant in Bankruptcy would be appointed trustee in most small asset cases. The accountant would then retain a proportion of such cases in-house, but allocate the remainder to insolvency practitioners on a fixed-price basis.
That procedure will allow all concerned to gain experience under the new regime and should permit a fairer comparison to be made between public and private sector provision when full market testing is undertaken. I am delighted that we have been joined by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), of the Liberal Democrats, in order to express his knowledge and experience of and interest in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill.
I assure the hon. Member for Moray that the accountant has recently circulated his proposals to all insolvency practitioners. As I have said, I hope that we can have such arrangements in place.

Mrs. Ewing: Has the Accountant in Bankruptcy given any indication of the basis on which he will deal with market testing? Last year, the Minister told me that he was working on anticipated bankruptcies of about 20,000 per annum. Is it not the case that the Accountant in Bankruptcy is now looking at a much smaller number of annual bankruptcies on which to base his market testing?

Mr. Stewart: I am unable to give the hon. Lady an exact estimate. With her expertise, she will know that there is great uncertainty about such matters, but the number will be below the original estimate.
The hon. Member for Moray asked about fees. I can confirm the figure that she suggested. The Accountant in Bankruptcy has offered the professionally standard fee of £600 plus VAT—that is, £705 gross—to handle a summary case. Work over and above that would be paid at a set fee or an hourly rate as appropriate in accordance with the tariff set by the accountant. I hope that, with that explanation, the amendments will commend themselves to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

PETITIONS FOR SEQUESTRATION

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 7, line 8, leave out from first ("a") to ("and") in line 10 and insert ("statement of assets and liabilities")

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 3 and 4, 12 to 17 and 20.

Mr. Stewart: The amendments might look substantial, but in fact they are technical. The main point of significance in them is the new definition of the statement of assets and liabilities which appears in amendment No. 20. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for

Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), with cross-party support, raised in Committee. It was a seemingly simple change but, as my hon. Friend will see, it has given rise to several amendments. The amendments should make the legislation easier to understand by debtors and advisers and therefore make the legislation easier to operate in future.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am delighted to be able to speak for a few minutes.
As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, amendment No. 20 relates to a matter that I raised upstairs in Committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the noble Lords on arriving at a form of words that achieves exactly what I failed to achieve in Committee. My hon. Friend will agree that the amendments that I spoke to in Committee were quite properly technically unsound. There was cross-party support in Committee for what I was trying to achieve. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) spoke at length in Committee. I am very happy, therefore, that the amendments should become part of the Bill.

Mrs. Ewing: Several of the amendments relate to clause 3, which is a particularly significant part of the legislation. The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
Clause 3 amends Section 5 of the 1985 Act to extend the grounds on which a debtor may petition for his own sequestration".
The only aspect of the amendments that concerns me is that it could be interpreted that there is a reduction in access to bankruptcy. It was never the intention of my parliamentary questions nor indeed the intention of any hon. Member in Committee that there should be any restriction in access to sequestration, which all hon. Members accept is often the best way forward for an individual who faces severe financial pressures. The context of the Bill was to reduce the costs involved in sequestration. I seek an assurance from the Minister that none of the amendments restricts access to sequestration.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for his kind comments about the proceedings in another place, where the purpose of his original amendments was met. They certainly had all-party support.
I reassure the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on the point that she raised. The purpose of the amendments is to assist debtors and those who advise them fully to understand the scope of their obigations and the related offence provisions. No reduction in access is implied in the amendments.

Mrs. Ewing: In the past few days, it has come to my notice that the Accountant in Bankruptcy is downgrading to 3,000 the anticipated number of annual bankruptcies in Scotland from the 20,000 that the Minister referred to in Committee last year. That is a huge drop. Most Members of Parliament know that many people, particularly those in small business, face bankruptcy. I seek an assurance from the Minister that severe restrictions will not be placed on those who seek sequestration.

Mr. Stewart: I can reassure the hon. Lady. She will agree that it is difficult to estimate the volume of sequestrations which might arise if the Bill is enacted. The amendments stand against the general background of the


routes by which a debtor can obtain access to sequestration. Those routes are increased by the Bill. I assure the hon. Lady that none of the amendments restricts access to sequestration.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 11

AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 8 in page 14, line 6, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")

Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 9 to 11 and 18 and 19.

Mr. Stewart: These drafting amendments correct various provisions in the 1985 Act. I draw the attention of the House especially to amendment No. 11, which was tabled by the Labour party in another place. The amendment makes a useful and technical change to the 1985 Act which will benefit anyone who requires to petition for the recall of a sequestration.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I too especially welcome amendment No. 11. As the Minister said, my colleagues in another place, especially Lord Macaulay, helped with the drafting of the Bill. We give our thanks to them and welcome the amendment, which improves the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair.]

Clause 3

THE APPROPRIATE ANNUAL RATE

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 5, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert—

'(1) In the case of—

(a) a person who, at the time of his retirement from qualifying judicial office is not either a circuit judge or a high court judge, and has completed in the aggregate, at least 20 years' service in such office, or
(b) a person who at the time of his retirement from qualifying judicial office is either a circuit judge or a high court judge, and has completed, in the aggregate, at least 15 years' service in qualifying judicial office,

the "appropriate annual rate" for the purposes of this Act is an annual rate equal to one-half his pensionable pay.'.

The purpose of the amendment is to give half pay on retirement to a circuit or High Court judge when he has served 15 years as a judge. The Government's proposal to extend the length of time which a High Court or circuit judge must serve by five years before he qualifies for his full pension is unfair, unreasonable and will cause serious problems for the working of the system.
In clause 2 of the Bill, the retirement age of judges has been reduced by five years. If, as the Government propose, the retirement age of judges is reduced in that way and the period which a judge must serve is increased from 15 to 20 years before he receives full pension, it follows that any judge who is appointed after the age of 50 will not be able to receive a full pension.
What does that mean for judges? It means that few judges will be able to receive a full pension. That will have ramifications for judges' wives—and widows—and children. Other amendments will address that matter. The effect is a reduction in pension for judges which is totally unfair. That is not the way to treat such an important and vital part of our community as the judiciary.
What effect does it have on the system? It means that those with less experience will become judges in order to serve the 20 years before qualifying for a pension and having to retire at the age of 70. Younger judges will have to be appointed, which will mean that they have had fewer years of experience at the Bar.
At present, the appointment of judgeship comes at the end of an experienced and successful period in the practitioner's life. Those who are successful at the Bar will not want to become judges. If they are earning about £200,000 a year with a successful practice at the Bar, why on earth should they take the appointment of a judgeship with a substantial reduction to about £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 a year which will bring with it a reduction in pension? Do we want less successful practitioners to become judges—those who have not had the experience or the success at the Bar which comes from ability?
Those who have burnt themselves out after 15 years will have a reason for wanting to hang on for another five years to collect their full pension. There is such a factor as the burnt-out judge. Work at the Bar is intensive and demanding. The more successful the practitioner, the more


demanding the work becomes. When one becomes a judge, one must apply one's mind with no let-up. It is relentless: day after day, one case follows another. When a practitioner at the Bar gets tired he can say, "No more work for a week or two while I take a holiday and recoup some of my strength." When one sits as a judge, effectively as a civil servant, one must maintain the days, weeks, months and hours of sitting.
There is absolutely no doubt, and it is obvious to those of us who practise at the Bar, that there are burnt-out judges—judges who should have retired some years ago but are hanging on for their pension. This measure may well cause a lot more burnt-out judges to hang on for another five years to qualify for a full pension. Do we really want extinct volcanoes gracing our benches?
There is a worrying aspect to the matter. If we do not get enough judges because successful and experienced practitioners do not want the massive drop in income and the resulting fall in their pensions and the money available to their widows, or if they do not want to be appointed at an early age before they have reached their apogee of earnings at the Bar, in the fullness of time there may well be a shortage of judges.
How will judges be recruited if there are so few coming forward due to the total lack of attractiveness of the pay, the terms of work, and the pension that they receive at the end? The answer is simple. We do what every other country in the European Community does: we appoint career judges, who will leave school and university and immediately become judges. That practice takes place elsewhere. Now that we are part of a federal super-state and all of the trading, industrial, social and other activities are standardised, there is a level playing field throughout the Community. Why should we not appoint our judges as career judges from the moment they leave university, as happens in all the other countries? I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not suggest that, when that happens, it will be the result of a deliberate act of harmonising our system with that of our European partners, but if we cannot get enough judges because the attractions to a judge both in payment and pension are so diminished, it is inevitable that we shall have a career judiciary, which no one in the United Kingdom regards as remotely desirable.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I wish to take up my hon. and learned Friend's point about the attraction or otherwise of the package. I must ask him to accept that the Bill is not a cost-cutting exercise. The cost of both schemes —if I may put it in the vernacular, "before" and "after" —has been actuarially assessed, on the basis of detailed calculations, at 28 per cent. of pay. The cost and attraction of the package is the same before as after.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: It sounds as though my hon. Friend has a guilty conscience. He is over-sensitive. I did not suggest that the reason for the proposal was cost cutting. I would not have been so presumptuous as to make that allegation about my hon. Friend.

Mr. John M. Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend's suggestion might have taken a different form of words, but the meaning is scarcely different. He suggested that on the far side of the changes the package was less attractive. I addressed that suggestion by saying that the package was

just as expensive to the taxpayer. The total package of receipts in the hands of the pension holder is of the same value and worth after as before.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I did not make the allegation, but if I had been able to do so because I felt justified in making it there would at least have been an explanation for the appalling treatment that the Government are meting out to judges. It would have been logical to say, "We are overspending on the legal system; we must reduce the amount of money that goes into it, so let us shorten the years in which a judge sits and lengthen the time they have to serve before they receive their pension."
As I am concerned about the need to reduce the enormous expenditure on our legal system and elsewhere, I am not sure that I would not have seen some justification in that argument. I am astonished to hear that that is not the justification for the measure—that it is not a cost-cutting exercise.
One is driven to ask why on earth we are taking action in the Bill which will have the bad effects that I have suggested. It will discourage the best practitioners from becoming judges, and make those who are not the best practitioners soldier on long beyond their sell-by date. Why on earth are the Government taking that position if it is not to save money, unless it is as a result of a misunderstanding of the effect that the measure will have on the judicial system? I have some reason for thinking that other misjudgments may have been made of the judicial and legal system in recent years. Perhaps the measure is just another in a line of misjudgments about how the legal system should work.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I declare an interest as a practising barrister. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, whichever way one looks at the package which has just been outlined to us, it does not deal with the heart of the matter, which is how do we attract the best people to become judges so that we can have the best judicial system? To go backwards does not seem to be a way of going forwards.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: It is not just going backwards—it is going a long way backwards. We are not talking about tinkering for a few months or a year. We are talking about a five-year extension in the accrual rate. Judges will have to be appointed after fewer years of service to the profession than hitherto in order to receive a full pension, so looking ahead the position will be markedly worse. It is difficult to see how any possible improvement in the legal system can be achieved as a result of the proposals on pensions in the Bill.
When I am told by my hon. Friend the Minister that the measure has not been taken for reasons of cost cutting, it becomes all the more incomprehensible. I have moved the amendment so that the matter can be properly ventilated in the Chamber and so that those who are involved in the legal profession and other professions and, indeed, the public can see how the future of our proud judiciary may be undermined to a marked extent by the proposals.

Mr. Roger Evans: I rise to support the amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister repeated what appears to have been the Government's position throughout the proceedings on the Bill. Their position is that the Bill is not intended to be anything other than


fiscally neutral. In the present circumstances for Government expenditure, I appreciate and accept the force of that. If that is the case, so be it. My hon. Friend the Minister's difficulty, and the reason why the amendment has been moved, is that so far he has not succeeded in removing, especially from the mind of many of the judiciary, the perception that the Bill is a cost-cutting exercise.
There are above all two reasons for that perception. First, the scheme as a whole may well be neutral in terms of public expenditure but certain sections of the wide series of judicial appointments will benefit considerably from improvements under the arrangements in the Bill. However, the circuit bench and the High Court bench see not that; they see only things which point to severe detriment for future appointees to those positions. That is the importance of the increase from 15 to 20 years, which will have incalculable—although difficult to predict in detail—consequences on the character of the next generation of the judiciary.
My hon. Friend the Minister has not persuaded the judiciary because there are different types of judges among whom there are losers and gainers. I respectfully suggest that time is still left for him to persuade us all that there is fiscal neutrality. The mystery of this controversy is that the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges still has hot had supplied to its actuary detailed calculations in answer to questions which he has put.

Mr. John M. Taylor: There has been plenty of opportunity for members of the judiciary or their representatives to raise questions on cost. There have been exchanges of correspondence since last summer. Meetings have taken place between various parties and there have been discussions on the telephone. In response to questions put to me in Committee, I facilitated the holding of a meeting between the actuarial advisor representing the circuit judges and a senior official of the Government Actuary's department. A meeting was arranged but it was cancelled at the last minute by the judiciary's advisor. I can assume only that the advisor was satisfied with the information that he already had.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has the advantage over me as to the detail of the cancellation of that meeting. However, the arguments which have been put me, and which I put to the House and invite my hon. Friend the Minister to answer, are as follows. First, the assumption has been made in the actuarial calculations of the Government Actuary that under the old and new schemes judges will retire at the same time evenly throughout the relevant years. That is an implausible assumption.
Under the existing arrangements, whereby pension is linked to pay, there is a built-in incentive for judges to retire shortly after their pay has increased. In other words, there will be a distinct difference between the patterns of retirement throughout the year before and after the proposals are implemented. That has a significant consequence of about 1.1 per cent. on the figures.
The second factor which has been challenged but has not been answered is that the real rate of discount assumed by the Government Actuary is 3.5 per cent. whereas 4 per cent. or more would be realistic over the longer period.
The third and perhaps most startling of the Government Actuary's assumptions is that the age and sex composition of the population of judges under the new

system—I use the bizarre technical term "population" beloved of statisticians—will not change in the next 20 years. I have no doubt that if that were the case it would create utter amazement, if not criticism, among hon. Members on both sides of the House. We appreciate that one of the factors about the present judiciary is the age at which they join the bench and the time that they were in private professional practice. With the advent of larger numbers of women at the Bar and becoming judges, it is inevitable that the composition of the judiciary—as regards both age and sex—will change during the next 20 years.
The actuary advising the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges has said that for those three reasons—which the Government Actuary has never dealt with as far as I am aware—there is more slack in the measure and, in some regards at least, my hon. Friend has the opportunity to be slightly more generous. I urge him to consider the amendment and to decide what response he can make.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Taking the last point first, the actuarial adviser to judges assumes that there is some slack in the equation because the significance of the move to pensionable pay has been underestimated. He says that this hypothesis would be confirmed by evidence of a bunching of retirements after the judges' April salary increases. The information on judicial requirements, however, shows that that is not the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) expressed his arguments with his customary urgent lucidity. I urge him to accept that, for months, every effort has been made to answer all the questions and to make information available. All the information specifically requested by the judiciary or the actuarial advisers has been provided. As I said, the circuit bench actuary met the Government Actuary last October and was offered another meeting last Friday, which was secured last Tuesday. I am advised that he telephoned to decline that meeting last Thursday. It is not for me to account for that but, whatever differences may still lie between my hon. Friend and myself, the Government extended themselves comprehensively to ensure that the information was available for discussion with anyone with whom he wanted.
In answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who tabled amendment No. 21, the Government do not accept the argument that the combination of the 20-year accrual period and the new retirement age of 70 will discourage suitable candidates from accepting appointment to the bench. Under the existing arrangements, a number of candidates are appointed at an age which will not permit them to earn full pension. Others continue in full-time service after they have completed the years required to earn a full pension. The special position of judges, who come to their careers relatively late in life, is recognised in the scheme by the tax concession of retained benefits. That is a most significant privilege for the judges, but the Government do not justify their opposition to a 15-year accural period on that ground alone. There are more telling reasons why the 15-year accural period, and the amendment, should be rejected.
The amendment would shatter the uniformity of treatment of the judiciary, which it is one purpose of the Bill to create. Where the Government are seeking to establish a common accrual period for all judicial officers, the amendment would create a two-tier pension regime, in


which circuit judges and High Court judges alone would have to work for 15 years before earning maximum benefits, while all other judicial officers would have to work for 20 years. In doing so, it would perpetuate—perhaps even accentuate—the inequities of the existing judicial pension arrangements.
7.45 pm
At present, different judicial officers have to work for different periods to earn a full pension. There are 15, 20 and even 40-year schemes. Those differences are not based on logic; they are the product of historical decisions, the reasons for which are no longer evident. The Government seek to remove the inherent unfairness in the arrangements by establishing a uniform accrual period of 20 years for all salaried judicial officers in the United Kingdom. The amendment, however, would enshrine the present unfairness in the new arrangements.
Let me give two examples. First, what possible justification remains for circuit judges in England and Wales to work for 15 years in order to earn a full pension, while their counterparts in Scotland, the sheriffs, have to work for 20 years as they would under the amendment? If the work of circuit judges is such that they should retire after 15 years, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton suggests, why should the same not hold for Scottish sheriffs who perform similar duties north of the border? And what about their Northern Ireland counterparts, the county court judges? They too already have a 20-year accrual period. Is their work less demanding than that of English and Welsh circuit judges? No, it is not. So why does the amendment omit to mention them? The amendment is illogical and plainly unfair.
A second example of the unfairness of the amendment is what is it about the offices of circuit judge and High Court judge that singles them out to remain in a 15-year scheme? There are other offices which presently have 15-year accrual periods, but the amendment does not seek to preserve their positions. For instance, the amendment does not extend to others in 15-year schemes, such as the heads of division, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary or the Lords Justices of Appeal, or to the senior judiciary in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Is it suggested that the work of a Lord Justice of Appeal is that much less onerous than that of a High Court judge or that of the Lord Chief Justice much less burdensome than that of a circuit judge? If this amendment were passed, there would be cause for resentment indeed.
There is no evidence that being members of a 20-year pension scheme has led to Scottish sheriffs or Northern Ireland county court judges becoming stale in the latter years of their service. I do not accept that judges who sit for more than 15 years on the bench are thereby less fit to perform their judicial functions, or to adapt to change, than those who do not. In fact, under the present arrangments, the average length of service of a circuit judge is not 15 years but about 18, and the average length of service of a High Court judge is about 19 years. So, the suggestion that the Government will be forcing judges to work longer than 15 years, against their better judgment, does not appear to hold water. I can do no better than quote my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when he said in another place:

I do not believe there is any real basis on which 15 years can be selected as self-evidently the right time at which to ask judges to retire. If it were so, it should apply to all judges." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 October 1992, c. 1066.]
There is another reason why the amendment would be deeply unfair. I have spoken about it before. The occasion of this Bill was the change to the general tax law introduced by the Finance Acts of 1987 and 1989. The judicial pension schemes are now the only occupational pension schemes in the United Kingdom which have not been obliged to comply with the standards that the Inland Revenue lay down before they will grant tax relief on contributions and lump sums on retirement. One of those requirements is that occupational pension schemes must have a minimum accrual period of 20 years. If the amendment were passed, circuit judges and High Court judges would be the only members of occupational pension schemes in the kingdom to whom that rule would not apply. What justification for that can there be? I would be the first to accept that the work of circuit judges and High Court judges is of the highest importance and often extremely onerous. I cannot accept that it is uniquely so, to the exclusion of all other professions and all other judicial offices. Should not High Court and circuit judges be subject to the same general tax law as the citizens whose case they hear?
The Government's other concern with the amendment is, of course, the cost. The new pension arrangements have been designed to be as close as possible to the cost of the existing arrangements. Were we to keep the accrual period of the nearly 600 circuit and High Court Judges at 15 years, this would increase the cost of providing judicial pensions by 4 per cent. of pay.
I respectfully give the House one note of warning. If the amendment is passed, the judicial pension scheme will, as I have explained, no longer appear to meet the criteria set down by general tax law for tax approval. In such circumstances, the Government would have to consider very carefully whether it could continue to allow the judicial pension scheme to enjoy tax-approved status, and whether judges could continue to benefit from the tax privilege of retained benefits. I must ask the House, in the interests of fairness to all concerned, to reject the amendment.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I notice that my hon. Friend has not addressed my important objection to the extension of the accrual time—the adverse effect that it would have upon the future of the judicial and legal professions—other than to mention some statistic about the length of time that judges are currently sitting. I should have liked my hon. Friend to address the concern expressed by those who understand and know best the consequences of this action —the judges themselves.
Judges represent a most reasonable section of society. They are not given to taking arms against any Government who check their privileges or the benefits that they may receive. However, they have sat down and, with great concern as well as understanding about the future of the system, highlighted the inevitable failures which will result from the Government's proposals.
My hon. Friend said that if the amendment were accepted it would lead to a 4 per cent. increase in costs. That may well be so; I am not in a position to dispute it. He said that it may lead to some kind of reconsideration of the tax status currently enjoyed by judges. I do not challenge that. My hon. Friend also said that uniformity of


treatment was necessary and referred to the creation of a two-tier system. Such a system already exists; all that my hon. Friend is advocating is its continuation. That argument cannot be considered satisfactory by any fair-minded, objective person.
I see the logic behind my hon. Friend's argument and 1 accept that there may be a perceived unfairness about any distinction which now exists between the accrual time of 15 years and 20 years. That unfairness should not be removed by creating a greater unfairness, with the likely consequences that I have suggested, particularly when those consequences are as harmful to the future of our judicial system as the judges and those who have thought about the matter seem to think.
It may be that, to be fair, my hon. Friend and the Government should reduce the time served for the approval of full pension for the Lord Chief Justice, judges of the Court of Appeal, sheriffs and judges in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Government should look forward to a time when they can proceed with such fairness. However, that argument is not an answer to the case that I have made in support of the amendment. It cannot be right that we should introduce a far greater unfairness, which will seriously harm the future of the legal profession and the legal system.
I note the less than full attendance in the House and I realise that when we come to discuss matters of pay, income and terms of service of lawyers or the judiciary it is an occasion for intense boredom and lack of interest by others in our society who think that lawyers earn enough, gain enough, do not contribute enough and should be hanged. Therefore, it would be impracticable and unrealistic for me to press the amendment to a Division, particularly since we have heard no word of support from those on the Opposition Benches. In those circumstances, I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

SURVIVING SPOUSE'S PENSION

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 7, line 14, leave out 'one-half' and insert 'two-thirds'.
The amendment deals with a matter that is more serious than that addressed in the previous amendment, because it will have an immediate effect upon the widows and, perhaps in due course, the children of judges who die in harness.
Under the Government's proposals, widows will be hurt greatly. To prevent that hurt from occurring, the amendment would increase from one half to two thirds the sum of money which accrues at the death of a judge.
Under the new scheme, pensions are to be calculated on the basis of pensionable pay rather than on the basis of pay currently received. Pensionable pay is the amount of pay received in the past year—last year's pay. Under the present scheme, a judge who has reached retirement, age can usually wait until the next pay increase on 1 April and retire on the basis of that increase, which is next year's pay.
The Government produced a set of figures for the debate in another place which compared the benefits payable under the old and new schemes. In my submission, those figures are unintentionally misleading because the

calculations were made for 31 March—the only day in the year when the two figures are the same. If the figures are calculated for 30 September 1992 or 1 April 1993, the results are quite different.
Under the new scheme, on 30 September 1992 the sum of £62,549 would accrue, but £64,064 would accrue under the old scheme. Under the old and new schemes, as at 31 March, the sum accrued would be the same, £64,064. Under the new scheme, on 1 April 1993 the sum of £64,069 would accrue, but £65,912 would accrue under the old scheme. In the first case, the judge and his wife will lose £1,133 a year, and when the judge dies his widow will lose £567 a year. In the second case, the judge and his wife will lose £933 and his widow will lose £467.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Is my hon. and learned Friend referring to someone who is currently the holder of a judicial appointment and is looking beyond to the effect of the proposed changes? Such a person does not have to enter the new scheme. If he so wishes, he may keep to his existing arrangements.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not challenge my hon. Friend's point, but what about future appointees? If they compare what they will get under the present scheme with what they would get under the new scheme, there is a marked difference in the sums payable not just to a judge, but to his widow. The new system is based on last year's pay rather than on the pay currently receivable. Under that system everyone loses—the judges, the widow and, in clue course, the children. The Government, of course, make savings.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), my hon. Friend the Minister said that the Bill was financially neutral and that the Government made no gains from it. That matter has been intensely disputed by the actuary for the judges and the Government's actuaries. A request has been made for figures and meetings, and there have been telephone conversations. I do not know whether the last such meeting scheduled for this weekend was cancelled for any reason, but I know that, until recently, the judges' actuary did not consider that he had been given the figures for which the Government were asked when the Bill was being considered in their Lordships' House. There has obviously been a misunderstanding. If the figures were as the judges' actuary calculated, there would be some leeway within the system to make the increase to protect the widows in the way suggested.
8 pm
One feature of the new legislation is that many judges will be unable or unwilling to complete their 20 years to qualify for a full pension. Under the old scheme, after 10 years the pension is three quarters earned while under the new scheme it will be only half earned. If we take a salary of £64,064, the full pension will be £32,032 for a judge, and £16,016 for his widow, which is not a large sum in current circumstances—certainly not when compared with the sort of earnings and pensions that can be gained in the private sector. If that figure is to be reduced by a quarter, the judge and his wife on his retirement will lose £8,000, and when the judge dies his widow will lose £4,000. The cumulative loss to the widow is enormous. It depends on the date of retirement, but unless the judge has been foolish enough to


retire on 31 March, the figure of £8,000 will increase because of the difference between actual pay and pensionable pay.
There are some cases where the new legislation will work to the widow's benefit—for instance, if her husband dies early in service—but there will not be a large number of such cases. In nearly every case, the judges' pension will be less under the new scheme, so the widow should be given compensation by means of a pension that is two-thirds of one half, not half of one half.
The new scheme provides for the lump sum to be two and a quarter times the pension based on the lower figure for pensionable pay, rather than twice the pension based on current pay. That is inadequate compensation for the lost pension. Independent actuaries have informed the judges that it compares badly with the amount given in the private sector. Under a typical private pension scheme for senior employees, the spouse's pension could well be two-thirds, not one half. Even if it were set at a half, the pension would have been at a higher maximum rate than 50 per cent. of the salary. In any scheme which introduces changes such as those proposed by the Government, there are likely to be gainers as well as losers, but it is impossible to believe that there will be many gainers under the Government's proposals, and the widows will be among the losers.
When the subject of the arrangements between the actuaries arose, the actuary for the judges, Mr. Wynne-Griffiths, suggested to the Government's actuaries that there should be some flexibility and some leeway in the system to enable the Government to make a concession to the widows. That was denied at an early stage and then, after the Government actuaries had considered the matter further, they conceded that there was some leeway. Perfectly properly, as one would expect from honourable people—and no doubt on the initiative of the Government, who are totally honourable, if misguided, in such matters—it was agreed that the sum of money seen to be available after a closer consideration of the statistics would enable the Government to give more help to the children. Now, my hon. Friend the Minister says that the package is fiscally neutral. He said that last time, but it was not. How can we be sure that he is any more correct this time than he was last time?
In the past few days, Mr. Wynne-Griffiths has been able to discuss the matter again with the Government's actuaries. It seems that there has been no detailed calculation to prove financial neutrality. All that has happened is that the Government's actuaries have made some computer predictions and Mr. Wynne-Griffiths has produced a further report. I shall not labour the details of that report, which has been sent to my hon. Friend the Minister and will no doubt be studied, if it has not been already, by the Government's actuaries, who will behave with as much honour as they have done in the past. No doubt, when the Government find that they have made an error, they will behave with the same degree of honour as they did over the concession for children.
I am told that amendment No. 22, which we hope will restore the widows to their former position by raising from one half to two-thirds the amount of the widows' pension, would produce about 0.8 per cent. to 1 per cent. of salary. I believe that there would be sufficient leeway in the system to afford the change that I am proposing without breaching the principle of financial neutrality.
It has been said that it has taken the judges' actuary quite some time to obtain the information, but now that the information has been vouchsafed and it is possible to work on the figures, we can see that the injustice to widows which would result from the proposals in the Bill can be corrected. We are talking not about the pension—my hon. Friend has dealt with that matter, which I was unable to press to a Division—but about how the pension will affect the widow. Of the wives of practitioners at the Bar and of judges, most of those whom I have known have been neglected by their husbands, who have been totally preoccupied with their work and service to the community for many years of their life.
If I am right—I have it on the best advice that I am —that a closer analysis of the statistics between the actuaries reveals a sufficient leeway, it follows that, to make the Bill truly fiscally financially neutral, it will be possible to increase the widows' pension. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give an undertaking that he will take a closer look at the subject to see whether the widows can be helped as a result of the new analysis of the figures?

Mr. Roger Evans: This is the one area where the Minister can make a concession in a way that will be appreciated.
We have talked about fiscal neutrality. Usually, when public expenditure proposals are discussed in these terms, we can work out what we are paying and what the proposals are and say that they balance, so they are neutral. This, however, is not such a simple case. It is not a straightforward public expenditure proposal.
We are discussing two potential arrangements for the future: one under existing premises, and a new system under new premises. It is not for us or for the Minister to decide, in that context, what is fiscally neutral. It is a matter of expert actuarial advice; we need the professional expertise to determine what is likely to happen. That sort of professional prediction is not so nice or accurate as not to allow, within the broad contention that this is fiscally neutral, this concession. It is not so expensive as to alter or detract from the essential proposition, which inevitably contains a degree of built-in inaccuracy; it is only an estimate.
Furthermore, the Minister did not answer on the previous amendment the three actuarial criticisms of the calculations, each one of which is worth a great deal more, I am advised, than the sum we are discussing here.
I support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has said, and I urge the Minister to undertake to investigate this actuarial aspect further to see whether he can make some concession on this limited aspect.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Once again, I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) for their skilful presentation of a case on which they have worked with considerable care.
At the risk of saying it three times, I must repeat that all the information requested by the judiciary or its actuarial advisers has been provided. The circuit bench's actuary had a meeting with the Government Actuary last October. If there were queries about the cost, surely that was the time to raise them—or if not, then at last Friday's


meeting, when the gentleman by the name of Mr. Wynne-Griffiths cried off. None of us seems to know why, but I am sure that he did.
I am reluctant to say this but I must: the paper prepared by Mr. Wynne-Griffiths contained a number of factual inaccuracies. For instance, the detailed calculations have not been made; it contains flawed logic in its actuarial approach—for instance, that a change in the financial assumptions would have a significant effect in releasing a margin for further benefit improvements. The judiciary's actuarial adviser also assumed that there was a bunching of retirements in April under the present arrangements. The information on retirements shows that that is not so.
Mr. Wynne-Griffiths' paper also contained an apparent error in the actuarial costings. For example, the cost of improving the spouse's benefit from a half to two thirds appears to have underestimated the true cost by a margin of 50 per cent. The actuarial adviser to the circuit judges has acknowledged that he has not made any detailed calculations, but the Government Actuary has assessed the cost at just over 2 per cent. of pay.
Given the number of errors and flaws in Mr. Wynne-Griffiths' paper, the Government do not place too much reliance on the validity of the circuit judges' actuarial advisers. In short, the paper fails to impress.
8.15 pm
As for the selected date, I should point out to the House—it was also pointed out to Mr. Wynne-Griffiths—that the comparative tables that we have provided are not, as he suggested, misleading. The footnotes make quite clear the assumptions on which they are based, and the covering letter from the Lord Chancellor specifically drew attention to them. Some date for comparison had to be chosen, and 31 March was chosen precisely because it is the only date when the starting point for the remuneration part of the pension calculation under the various schemes is the same.
The point of introducing the concept of pensionable pay is not to make savings for the Treasury but, as is accepted elsewhere, to iron out an injustice. As I have already said, there is no evidence of any bunching of retirements on or around 1 April.
My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend have assumed that we have created some headroom in the system. If there were any headroom, I can assure them that it would have been amply absorbed by the nine changes under the scheme which involve an increase in value to the beneficiaries. Lump sum retirement benefits are increased from twice to two and a quarter times pension. Lump sum death benefit in service is increased from once to twice pay. Service enhancements applying to death in service or on ill health retirement are introduced, to reckon one-half of potential service to age 65. As the pension comparison tables show, that is better at most durations than the position under current schemes.
Maximum pension age is reduced to 70 and opportunities to retire on pension aged 65, or with actuarially reduced pension from the age of 60, are introduced. Contributions from members of the higher judiciary are reduced from 4 per cent. of pay to 3 per cent. of pay. No deductions from lump sum benefits in respect of outstanding contributions for spouses' benefits are to be made. There will be an integrated pension scheme for the whole judiciary, with no loss of benefit expectations on promotion. The list continues with the improvement of

eligibility for children's benefits and the lump sum death benefit after retirement improved to a balance of five times pension.
I did not embark on this litany inadvertently. I thought that this Report stage of an extremely important Bill was a crucial moment to put some of these matters on record. Although not many hon. Members are in the Chamber now, this debate will have, if not a wide, then a learned readership tomorrow morning, and the Government are entitled to put the basis of their case on record even if that involves slightly delaying the House.
I should like strongly to rebut the idea that the Government are seeking to do judges or their spouses out of part of their pensions. No husband or wife of a serving judge will lose out as a result of the Bill, because membership of the new pension arrangements is entirely voluntary. No serving judge will be forced to join the scheme.
The spouse's pension is half the deceased scheme member's pension under both the existing and the new arrangements; the Bill, therefore, makes no change to the method by which the surviving spouse's pension is to be calculated, save to provide for its enhancement in the event of a judge's death in service. Many Members will have seen the tables prepared by the Government Actuary's department comparing the level of benefits which can be obtained from the existing and proposed arrangements. These demonstrate that there are circumstances when one arrangement provides a higher level of benefit than the other arrangement, and vice versa. This should come as no surprise to anyone; it is the inevitable result of making changes to a pension scheme while keeping the overall cost the same. No savings whatever are expected to be made by the Exchequer as a result of these changes.
It has always been the Government's intention that the changes to the judicial pension arrangements should have no effect on their overall cost. If we are to keep to this aim, then this amendment could be accepted only if corresponding reductions were made to the level of benefits elsewhere in the scheme to offset the increased cost of providing spouses' pensions. The cost of this amendment would be slightly over 2 per cent. of the judicial payroll, so the adjustments to other benefit levels would be severe. I do not believe that my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend would win much support from members of the judiciary who will become members of this scheme if they forced us to travel that road.
We should be considering the value of the surviving spouse's pension to the surviving spouse, and how it compares with that provided by other schemes. It has been argued that a spouse's pension of two thirds of the scheme member's pension is common in the private sector. I am informed by the Government Actuary's department that that is not true. It is most unusual for any pension scheme to provide a spouse's pension at that level. The typical private sector occupational pension scheme provides a spouse's pension of about only 17 per cent. of a member's pensionable pay after 20 years' service, compared with 25 per cent. of pensionable pay provided by the new judicial pension arrangements after the same period of service. That, incidentally, is identical to the level of spouse's pension, expressed as a percentage of pensionable pay, payable to the widow or widower of an hon. Member after the same period of service. I am mildly surprised that it


should be implied that benefits that the House considers good enough for the spouses of Members are less than sufficient for the spouse of a deceased judge.
When one considers other public service pension schemes, one finds that the attractiveness of the benefits offered by the new judicial pension arrangements becomes more apparent. The usual benefit payable to the surviving spouse of a member of a typical public service pension scheme after 20 years is only 12.5 per cent. of pensionable pay—half the value of the Members' and judges' scheme. This disparity is justified by the unusual career patterns of the judiciary and Members of Parliament, and the Government believe that that treatment is generous enough.
The new judicial pension arrangements provide for a fair and attractive level of surviving spouse's pension, and I must ask the House to reject the amendment.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sorry that under our system Mr. Wynne-Griffiths, a senior partner in a well-established and successful firm of actuaries, is not able to defend himself here from the critical comments of my hon. Friend the Minister.
I am not able to go into the details of conversations, letters and telephone calls between the Government's actuaries and the actuary acting on behalf of the judges, but when it was said that the Bill was financially neutral Mr. Wynne-Griffiths corrected that assertion, having presented his own figures without—I do not go into the reasons—being able to see all the conclusions on which the Government based their statistics. He drew to the Government's attention the fact that the Bill was not financially neutral and that there was some leeway. Having considered the point, the Government's actuaries agreed that Mr. Wynne-Griffiths was right. A small concession was given to children, for which the judges are extremely grateful. I understand that that resulted from Mr. Wynne-Griffiths's skill, knowledge and wisdom, and if my hon. Friend the Minister is not able to give credit where it is due I am sorry.
I am sorry, too, that my hon. Friend the Minister did not feel that it was appropriate to say, "We are in the world of mystery of the actuary". I suppose that actuaries are much like economists. About 360 economists wrote to say that some aspect of Government economic policy was wrong, but they did not apologise when it was discovered that they were all wrong. I suppose that, like economists, actuaries are capable of error in the conclusions that they draw from statistics. They are probably no different from anybody else, and I hope that they are not. I hope that they are human and that they understand these matters.
It is not for my hon. Friend the Minister or me—we are not actuaries and we do not understand their world—to join the detailed argument, but I have quoted some alarming figures showing how much a widow may lose. I hoped that my hon. Friend might find it—I hesitate to say in his heart, as Ministers are not supposed to have hearts—within his generous personality and capability to say, "We shall look at these figures again. We shall arrange a meeting between Mr. Wynne-Griffiths, the actuaries and the Government Actuary and if, after a closer look, it appears that what was unthinkable last time but which proved to be so and what is unthinkable now turns out so, we shall, because we wish to do no harm to widows, see whether an improvement can be made in the provision for widows."

Mr. John M. Taylor: I should like to say, for the sake of the record, that the improvements made to benefits and designs, to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, were made by the Government in response not, I am afraid, to arguments advanced by the gentleman whose name has been referred to more than once this evening but to representations in the other place.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am instructed that those improvements were possible only because leeway was discovered in the financial arrangements. That was discovered not by politicians or lawyers but by actuaries on the prompting of Mr. Wynne-Griffiths. All I am saying is that if there is a conflict between the actuaries it should be thoroughly considered to ensure that a widow, or perhaps a substantial number of widows, does not suffer loss because of the Government's proposals for equalising the law of pensions for judges.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister, once he has read this interesting debate, will think again before their Lordships consider our amendments, which I shall not oppose, to see whether widows can be helped. I am sure that it is the wish of the entire House that they should be helped. I see no response from my hon. Friend the Minister, and in the absence, again, of support from the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and the serried ranks of Opposition Members, who I would have thought, on a matter of widows if not judges, would have had some reason for saying, "Yes, we support the case that you are advancing", I face up to reality and realise that this is not a matter to be pressed to a vote. One is never too surprised at things that happen in this place. I hope that the biggest surprise will be when my hon. Friend the Minister causes some change to be considered for the future. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FROM VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 13, line 36, at end insert
'or, in relation to Northern Ireland, Article 2(2) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1975;'.

No. 2, in page 13, line 38, at end insert
'or, in relation to Northern Ireland, Article 2(2) of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;'.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Clause 26

RETIREMENT DATE FOR HOLDERS OF CERTAIN JUDICIAL OFFICES ETC

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 24, line 41, after 'order' insert `(a)'.

No. 4, in page 24, line 42, at end insert
'; or
(b) amend subsection (8) above by adding offices to those for the time being specified in that subsection.'.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Schedule 2

TRANSFER OF ACCRUED BENEFITS

Amendment made: No. 5 in page 32, line 40, at end insert—
'"occupational pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 66(1) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 or, in relation to Northern Ireland, Article 2(2) of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975;
personal pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 84(1) of the Social Security Act 1986 or, in relation to Northern Ireland, Article 2(2) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;'.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Schedule 3

CORRESPONDING MINOR AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PENSIONS ENACTMENTS

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 41, line 14, at end insert
'or, in relation to Northern Ireland, Article 2(2) of the Social Security Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975;'.

No. 7, in page 41, line 16, at end insert
'or, in relation to Northern Ireland, Article 2(2) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;'.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Schedule 4

PENSIONS FOR SENIOR PUBLIC INVESTIGATIVE OFFICERS

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 49, line 29, leave out 'and'.

No. 9, in page 49, line 32, at end insert
'and
(d) for the purpose of determining, in the event of his death, the rate of any surviving spouse's or children's pension payable under sections 5 to 8 of that Act in respect of his service as Comptroller, as if references in those sections to the annual rate of the deceased's judicial pension were references—

(i) where a pension had commenced to be paid to him by virtue of subsection (5) above, to the appropriate annual rate of that pension; or
(ii) where no such pension had commenced to be paid to him, to the rate that would have been the appropriate annual rate of the pension payable to him by virtue of subsection (5)(b) above, had he not died, but been disabled by permanent infirmity for the performance of the duties of his office on and after the date of death;'.

No. 10, in page 49, line 35, leave out from 'sections' to end of line 36.

No. 11, in page 52, line 31, leave out 'and'.

No. 12 in page 52, line 34, at end insert

'and
(d) for the purpose of determining, in the event of his death, the rate of any surviving spouse's or children's pension payable under sections 5 to 8 of that Act in respect of his service as Commissioner, as if references in those sections to the annual rate of the deceased's judicial pension were references—

(i) where a pension had commenced to be paid to him by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, to the appropriate annual rate of that pension; or
(ii) where no such pension had commenced to be paid to him, to the rate that would have been the appropriate annual rate of the pension payable to him by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, had he not died, but been disabled by permanent infirmity for the performance of the duties of his office on and after the date of death;'.

No. 13, in page 52, line 37, leave out from 'sections' to '13' in line 38.

No. 14, in page 56, line 43, leave out 'and'.

No. 15, in page 56, line 46, at end insert

'and
(d) for the purpose of determining, in the event of his death, the rate of any surviving spouse's or children's pension payable under sections 5 to 8 of that Act in respect of his service as Comptroller and Auditor General, as if references in those sections to the annual rate of the deceased's judicial pension were references—

(i) where a pension had commenced to be paid to him by virtue of paragraph (4), to the appropriate annual rate of that pension; or
(ii) where no such pension had commenced to be paid to him, to the rate that would have been the appropriate annual rate of the pension payable to him by virtue of paragraph (4)(b), had he not died, but been disabled by permanent infirmity for the performance of the duties of his office on and after the date of death;'.

No. 16, in page 56, line 49, leave out from 'sections' to '13' in line 50.

No. 17, in page 59, line 40, leave out 'and'.

No. 18, in page 59, line 43, at end insert

'and
(d) for the purpose of determining, in the event of his death, the rate of any surviving spouse's or children's pension payable under sections 5 to 8 of that Act in respect of his service as Commissioner, as if references in those sections to the annual rate of the deceased's judicial pension were references—

(i) where a pension had commenced to be paid to him by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), to the appropriate annual rate of that pension; or
(ii) where no such pension had commenced to be paid to him, to the rate that would have been the appropriate annual rate of the pension payable to him by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b), had he not died, but been disabled by permanent infirmity for the performance of the duties of his office on and after the date of death;'.

No. 19, in page 59, line 46, leave out from 'sections' to '13' in line 47.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Schedule 8

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 91, line 31, leave out from 'words' to end of line 33 and insert
'qualifying judicial office, within the meaning of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.".'.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I beg to move, That the Bill now be read the Third time.
I do not wish to speak at any great length at this point in the proceedings, but would like to comment on one or two matters before we bring our consideration of the Bill to a close.
The occasion for the Bill was the change in the tax treatment of pension schemes introduced by the Finance Acts of 1987 and 1989. That legislation provided the means by which the Revenue applied common standards to all modern occupational pension schemes. Those standards were not applied to the judicial pension schemes. However, there was a thorough-going review of those schemes and consultation with the judiciary on the design of improved pension arrangements. The Bill is the product of that review and consultation. Its provisions


apply the same standards to judicial pension arrangements as the Revenue applies to all other public service and private sector occupational pension schemes. It brings judicial pension arrangements more into line with modern tax law.
The Government have also taken this opportunity to make a number of other significant changes to the judicial pension arrangements. In place of a plethora of judicial pension schemes with different accrual periods, contribution rates and benefit levels, they have created a unified scheme embracing all salaried judicial officers in the United Kingdom. As well as being inherently fairer than the existing position, this will remove the barriers which the current arrangements place in the way of judges moving between the different levels of the judiciary on promotion. Following representations, the Bill was amended by the Government in several important respects in the other place further to improve the level of benefits it provides. The judicial pension arrangements provided by the Bill now constitute an attractive package which compares favourably with other public service and private sector occupational pension schemes.
The Bill also makes provision, following consultation, for setting a new general retirement age of 70 for all judicial officers first appointed after the Bill comes into force. That uniform arrangement will replace the present variety of retirement ages. The choice of the age of 70 instead of another age has not been without its critics. The right retirement age for the judiciary is clearly a matter of judgment. It is the Government's view, however, that 70 is the appropriate age; it takes account both of the need for experience and maturity of judgment and the fact that the burdens of office can be onerous.
I think that it is right at this stage of the Bill to say a quick word about commencement. If the Bill is given a Third Reading, completes its final stage in the other place and goes on to receive Royal Assent, there will still be a considerable amount of work to be done in the form of regulations—many of an actuarial nature—before it can be fully implemented. It is my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor's present intention that both the pensions and retirement provisions of the Bill be commenced simultaneously. However, in view of the work I have just mentioned, it is unlikely that the Bill can be brought into force much before the end of 1993.
Finally, I would like to thank all those on both sides of the House who have contributed to our debates on this Bill. It has provided an opportunity for hon. and right hon. Members to raise a wide range of issues relating to the judiciary, many of which have proved of great interest. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Having given such detailed and lengthy consideration—for which we are indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir. I. Lawrence)—to the special interests of the judges, it is right that we should spend at least some time considering what is perhaps the most important interest of all in judicial and legal services, the public and consumer interest. I shall address myself to those matters.
The Government have missed an opportunity. We hoped that they would go much further than they did and

that the House would consider the subject of judicial services. The quality of those services remains high and the intellect of those who work in them is, in the main, without parallel in the jurisdiction of the EEC and further still. We could have examined how judicial services might be improved and enhanced in the interests of the consumer. We hoped that we would address the issue of a younger judiciary and the means by which we could encourage the appointment, at an earlier age, of suitably qualified practitioners, be they barristers, solicitors or academics drawn from either branch, and how we might so arrange pensions to enable that to happen.
The Government missed the opportunity but at the same time increased the required length of service to qualify for a judicial pension and reduced the age of retirement to 70. They failed to incorporate into the Bill any positive measures to encourage the appointment of younger people to the bench. They failed to respond to the desirability of reducing the retirement age still further and making it, as both the Bar and the Law Society and a broad cross-section of consumer interests have suggested, 65 rather than 70. We regret the missed opportunity.
In Committee, we tried to persuade the Government of the wisdom of our case to reduce the retirement age. They failed to be persuaded, and the Bill is flawed. It will remain flawed as a recipe for a judiciary in tune with the times and capable of meeting their challenges. The important issue must be addressed, together with another issue touched on by the hon. and learned Member for Burton, but then drawn away from as if one had spoken of an unpleasant heresy, and that is the notion that it might just be possible to conceive of a judiciary in which there were opportunities for the development of a career. I have in mind a judicial service in which it might be possible to appoint practitioners in their late thirties, or in their forties, to the junior ranks of the judiciary, and then see them advance up the scale to the highest judicial offices. The Bill recognises the importance and possibility of the portability of pensions, and that is to be supported and commended, but it does nothing to recognise and encourage the desirability of appointing practitioners to the bench at a younger age and providing a career structure that will enable them to advance within it.
I do not see why we should accept as holy writ the notion propounded by the hon. and learned Member for Burton that someone at the Bar is automatically qualified for the judiciary when he or she is earning about £200,000 a year. He seemed to suggest that a practitioner should be earning that sort of sum before he or she could be considered qualified for judicial appointment. The hon. and learned Gentleman clearly practises in a different world from that occupied by myself and other humble practitioners. The notion that only when a practitioner earns £200,000 a year is he or she qualified to make the supreme sacrifice of entering the judiciary is palpably absurd. It does not bear examination.
I wish to do nothing at this late stage of our consideration of the Bill to excite the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope in due course to be able to make much more common cause with him on the issue of legal aid.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: If there is a difference between my earnings at the bar and those of the hon. Gentleman, it is because I have been at it, as it were, a bit longer than he. I have no doubt that in due course he will earn the highest amounts possible under the legal aid system. I can assure


him that they will not come to anything like £200,000 a year. I quoted that figure as an example of what some of the best practitioners—the most experienced and successful—earn in some branches of the law.
The hon. Gentleman might agree with me that many of those who are appointed to the circuit beench have not been privileged to earn £200,000 a year. Their earnings before appointment have been substantially lower. They have been unable to accumulate a pension outside the judiciary that would enable them to make a substantial enough contribution to make becoming a judge worth while.

Mr. Boateng: Quite so. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman read the reports of our Committee proceedings. I made that point about earnings then.
It would be dangerous for those who take an interest in our proceedings outside the House and who are not lawyers to gain the impression that only practitioners who earn the sort of sum that the hon. and learned Gentleman has seen fit to quote would be qualified for entry to the judiciary. A progressive approach to judicial appointments must be one that seeks to encourage the broadest possible cross-section of practitioners, people with different skills and experience but suitably qualified. There must be the broadest ranges of ages and gender. In that regard, we cannot afford any complacency.
At a time when there is considerable public interest in the judiciary and legal services generally, it is right that there should be a public debate about the composition of the judiciary, how training might be enhanced and how appointments might be made more transparent. We examined those issues in Committee. We pressed—we shall continue to do so—the value of a lay element. It is a matter of deep regret to Opposition Members that in Committee—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. A debate on Third Reading must be confined to what is in the Bill. It is not the time to talk about what is not in it or what should be in it.

Mr. Boateng: Quite so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I invite the attention of the House to clause 11.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Must the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Gentleman has every reason to be tired, given the events of recent months. I have in mind especially his recent exposure to lawyers over international treaty organisations. I well understand why he is reluctant to embark upon a detailed study of the Bill. I must, however, tax him just a little and add to the woes that befall him.
When we consider the clauses that relate to the entitlement to a pension of holders of judicial office, it is interesting to reflect on their impact on the opportunities and entitlements of women who, against the odds, achieve judicial office. There is still an imbalance against women in the appointment of and to the judiciary. The relevant clauses will still further disadvantage women who rise to judicial appointments unless there is a policy that positively seeks out women entrants. I have in mind a policy that encourages practitioners to enter the judiciary at an earlier age, and one that will have more women members. Such a judiciary would be better qualified to

command the wholehearted confidence of the public. I say that from the point of view of the Lord Chancellor's Department and of those responsible for appointing judges.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to know that the Lord Chancellor has stated his policy on judicial appointments in these terms—that while it must be the best who are appointed, none the less he wants more women and representatives of ethnic minorities to be appointed. Optimistically, as more women and people from ethnic minorities are recruited into the legal profession, it will not be long before they are at an age in the recruiting grounds when they can be promoted. I think that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that, as I do.

Mr. Boateng: It is always encouraging to hear such sentiments being expressed by the Minister, echoing what I know to be the Lord Chancellor's sincerely held belief, to which he has sought ably to give effect during recent years. However, there is no room for complacency, which is why we have been concerned to ensure that that matter is taken on board.
It is possible and desirable to have a more ethnic and gender-varied bench which in every way represents the community that it serves not only through talent and intellectual achievement, but through race and gender make-up. It is eminently desirable that we take that into account during our consideration of the Bill.
We doubt that the Bill would have come before the House in its present form had it been the subject of consultation with and input from a far broader range of interests. That is why it is so important to take account of consumer interests. Time and again we have spoken about the deficiencies in policy making within the Lord Chancellor's Department—the shapers of the Bill—when there is no involvement, as of right, for the consumers of legal services. The judiciary provides a valuable public service. Although standards of integrity and intellect are of the highest, we shall continue to press for judicial services that are more shaped by lay involvement through appointments, that are enhanced by training opportunities linked to a career structure, and that are underpinned by pension arrangements of the sort outlined in the Bill. At the same time, we want a judiciary that is more diverse and whose members retire earlier than at present.
We will not divide the House on Third Reading. We want to extend our thanks to the Minister and those hon. Members on both sides of the House who served on the Committee. We also thank the Chairman and the Officers of the House. We owe them a debt of thanks for a course of deliberation that has been enlightening and entertaining and whose ultimate conclusion, while by no means perfect, is livable with.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Unusually, I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said. There is obviously a high degree of cross-party unity on the Bill. The fact that we have concentrated on the Bill's drawbacks should not hide from the public the fact that, in general, the Bill has been widely welcomed for its important provisions, which will improve the system.
It is only right to point out—it may not have been apparent from anything said this evening—that some very distinguished and eminent people have opposed certain


elements of the Bill. The Lord Chief Justice made his maiden speech opposing elements of the Bill. A former Lord Chancellor, some Law Lords and a former Master of the Rolls all made speeches opposing certain elements of the Bill. It has not been widely welcomed in all its features.
The circuit judges have done a great deal to advance the argument for widows' and other pensions, although they were not alone in that. When we stand back and look at the current position it is obvious that the major vice of the Bill is, as was said in another place, the combination of reducing the retiring age for judges and increasing the accrual rate for earning a pension.
The Bill was summed up in the other place by, I think, the Lord Chief Justice—although it may have been one of the other judges—as something that would produce serious problems of recruitment, judicial staleness and injustice, and not a Bill that should command, in all its aspects, universal support—not only among lawyers but among all who consider the logical and reasonable criticisms that have been levelled against it.
It is obvious that young people in their early years of practice at the Bar, who are trying to pay off a mortgage and who have substantial expenses if they are educating their children, cannot build up private pensions that are adequate to supplement the pension that a judge will earn at the end of his long period of accrual. There are distinctive features of practice at the Bar and on the bench that are not wholly comparable with life outside. For someone who becomes a judge, it is a whole new profession begun in late middle age. That is the real anomaly about the judiciary, not the fact that the accrual rates vary from one sort of judge to another.
I do not believe that the Government have given enough attention to the judiciary's concern about the future of the judicial profession, and about how much more difficult it will be in the new, hectic litigious world to find judges of calibre and to attract them. If they are of great calibre and are attracted, the calibre of the Bar will be depleted; if they are of calibre and lose their calibre, they will be encouraged to stay on past their sell-by date—their date of efficiency—to qualify for a pension.
Let me make a point that I did not make in my earlier speech, when I was trying to speak as briefly as possible in order not to weary the House. I was stunned by both the comments of the hon. Member for Brent, South and those of my hon. Friend the Minister about women. How on earth can we pretend that we are creating a system in which women will find it more attractive to be judges, while ensuring that, by the time they get on to the bench and have served a period as judge, they will not be able to earn a full pension unless they stay on for much longer than they need or ought to? In the early stages of their lives, such women may have raised families. They may have been out of Bar practice for years, while others will have been accruing private pensions to be added to the pensions that they will receive as judges.
What on earth will be the temptation for those women to follow the judicial path later in life, knowing that they will be so much worse off finanically at the end? It is all very well having pious ideas about how, in the future, there will be more women barristers—if they can find chambers and stay at the Bar, and if they have not been channelled into some other occupation, such as the Crown prosecution service or the solicitors' profession, because it is no longer particularly attractive to stay at the Bar—if they are then given a disincentive to follow a judicial career because their incomes will be reduced from the moment that they take a pension.
Actuaries may look at their figures; Governments, with the help of the Treasury, may examine their financial disbursements. Ultimately, however, we must have a judicial system that contains the best people. We want a judicial system with women—and women will not be encouraged to become judges as a result of proposals such as this.
I wish the Bill godspeed, but I wish that my hon. Friend and the Lord Chancellor had given more serious consideration to the criticisms levelled against it by the most senior judges in the land. They were not talking nonsense. I hope that, when we look back on the legislation in a few years' time, we shall have no cause to regret the decisions that my hon. Friend and the Government have made—quite stubbornly—to proceed with their original plan.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European Community documents),

RISK PREVENTION OFFICERS IN THE TRANSPORT INDUSTRY

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8642/92, relating to risk prevention officers in the transport industry; notes that the proposed draft Directive conflicts with existing national and international legislation in the field of health and safety at work; and endorses the Government's intention to seek substantial amendments to the wording of the draft Directive with the aim of maintaining existing health and safety levels.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European Community documents),

RESTRUCTURING OF THE SPANISH STEEL INDUSTRY

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9766/92, relating to the restructuring of the Spanish integrated steel company CorporaciOn de la Siderurgia Integral (CSI), and 10341/92, relating to the restructuring of the Spanish steel company Sidenor; and supports the Government's view that the Spanish proposals are inappropriate given the scale and timing of the capacity reductions proposed, the amount of state aid involved and the problems of over-capacity and depressed prices facing the Community steel industry.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Drancy Concentration Camp

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. David Alton: I thank the Minister of State for being present. I think that he, like me, will be relieved that the debate is starting an hour earlier than the scheduled time for its commencement; he is probably also relieved to know that neither the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth)—who hopes to speak in the debate—nor I intend to detain the House until its possible rising time of 10.30 pm.
It is worth reflecting that, even if the powers of Back Benchers are limited, we at least have the opportunity to be bloody minded and persistent in pursuing issues when we believe that a grave injustice, or even a miscarriage of justice, has been perpetrated. For close on 50 years, the issue that I raise tonight has eaten away at the men whose cases I shall cite. Although they are in no way bitter, they have never accepted, and will never accept, decisions that have compounded their burning sense of injustice and grievance.
Appropriately, the debate comes as we prepare to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic, and the deaths of some 39,000 merchant seamen, whose sacrifice in the service of this nation has so often been overlooked. The debate also presents an opportunity for Ministers to conclude, properly and honourably, what I regard as unfinished business.
It was the late Airey Neave, so cruelly assassinated on the day after I was elected to the House in 1979, who on 15 July 1963 raised the treatment of merchant seamen on the Adjournment of the House. He said that the Foreign Office had been dilatory in dealing with these cases. His complaint was that, having raised the issue in 1956, it had taken until July 1963 to get adequate responses out of the Foreign Office. He said:
I know he is undertaking delicate and difficult negotiations,"—
he was talking about the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—
but I should like to know how he is getting on with them, because I feel that this really is a deserving case, and one in which people really have received very inadequate treatment from the Foreign Office and who deserve indemnity or compensation for the indignities which they suffered. This is not entirely a question of money. It is also a question of loss of prestige and dignity as a result of being placed in these concentration camps.
Those are sentiments that my constituents whose cases I am raising tonight share, but for them it is not simply a question of money. It is a question of dignity and prestige. During that debate Airey Neave said:
A number of prisoners-of-war—merchant seamen and others—were moved to concentration camps quite illegally, and it is my view—and, I believe, the view of the Foreign Office—that they should be compensated for what they have suffered."—[Official Report, 15 July 1963; Vol. 681, c. 297–99.]
During that debate in the 1960s, Airey Neave protested vigorously at that 20-year delay in establishing a compensation fund for victims of Nazi persecution.
It was to take another 12 months before the then Foreign Secretary, R. A. Butler, told the House on 9 June 1964 that a £1 million compensation fund had been established. In answer to the Member of Parliament for

Huyton—the hon. Member for Knowsley, North now represents much of what was then the constituency of Lord Wilson—he said:
The term 'Nazi persecution' is taken to cover any area in which Nazi persecution took place.
In that debate, many hon. Members queried the sum of money made available as inadequate. They said that it was unlikely that it would be sufficient to meet the likely claims. The Foreign Secretary demurred but agreed that
Reopening the matter is for the House".—[Official Report, 9 July 1964; Vol. 696, c. 244–46.]
On 15 June 1964 he added that
Claims arising out of contravention of the Geneva Convention as such are not included, and remain for consideration only in the context of a final peace settlement." —[Official Report, 15 June 1964; Vol. 696, c. 123.]
Any hopes of that happening were dashed, as was explained to me in a letter from the Minister of State on 4 June 1992. He said:
The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, signed at Moscow on 12 September 1990, by the four Wartime Allies and Germany, definitively settled matters arising out the Second World War. There will be no separate peace treaty. I am afraid we see no possibility of a case such as Mr. Roberts' now forming the basis of a successful claim for compensation. Servicemen were, and are, entitled to disability pensions for any illness or disability they suffered as a result of serving with the Forces, and many receive such pensions. It would appear Mr. Roberts' claim for compensation as a victim of Nazi persecution was considered in 1964 and the request turned down, presumably on the grounds that Drancy was not a concentration camp.
As that quotation from the Minister of State's letter reveals, one of those who applied for compensation under the scheme which R. A. Butler revealed to the House in 1964 was Mr. Ted Roberts of Aigburth, Liverpool. His compatriots, Mr. Arthur Thomas, also a constituent of mine, of Edge Hill, Liverpool, and Mr. Thomas Roscoe of Allerton, Liverpool, were never even informed of their right to reply, although both Mr. Thomas and Mr. Roscoe have been given small disability entitlements, due to the adverse effects on their health, which doctors confirm are directly attributable to the privations that they suffered during captivity. I know that it is the intention of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North—if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—also to raise the case of Stanley Cruces, one of his constituents, who was in the same position as Mr. Roscoe and Mr. Thomas in not knowing of his right to make an application for compensation.
However, Mr. Ted Roberts did apply for compensation and he was refused because, he was told at the time, Drancy was not regarded as a concentration camp. It would be useful for the House to hear directly from Mr. Roberts with whom I have shared the correspondence that I have received and I am grateful to the Minister of State for the trouble that he has taken in respect of the replies that he has sent to me. He certainly cannot be regarded as dilatory in replying to correspondence that I have raised with him over the past several months.
In a letter to me, Mr. Roberts stated:
Mr. Garel-Jones should realise that we—the merchant seamen—had been up to five months at sea as German prisoners, the conditions were appalling—lack of water, food, air and light. We were lousy with sores, exhausted and knowing that our very existence could end suddenly, not having a chance to fight the enemy, but entombed in quarters that could be described as a steel coffin that could be pierced by a shell or torpedo, engulfed in fire or flooded with water at any time. In this torrid atmosphere, we had no books or any kind of recreation, anticipating in a state of utter despair the manner of our final exit. I can understand the fear and the


hopelessness of the Jews, Russians, Poles and others in camps such as those in Poland particularly. The difference between us was that we did survive, to land on terra firma.
We were dumped without ceremony in Drancy in late December 1940. We had air, we saw the sun, we had water (of doubtful purity), but we had no contact with the Red Cross. We never received, nor were we allowed, to send letters to anyone, including parents. The Geneva Convention was not upheld. We were not prisoners of war, but civilian internees. In this camp we were simply scavengers living somehow from day to day, wondering about the next bite, like dogs with a bone. We hid or carried our life sustenance in our pockets.
Mr. Roberts continues:
Drancy was an unfinished housing complex, no windows were installed and floors were of concrete. Our quarters were on the upper floors. We had straw mattresses on the concrete, few clothes and one thin blanket. On one of the floors above we came across some old French army coats which relieved the cold somewhat. The toilets were in the middle of the square. Behind the toilet seats excrement was piled high to the roof.
We left Drancy for Sandbostel. We travelled in cattle trucks; food was very short and water was not available. Our latrine bucket was filled once (at Aachen) during our three day journey. Five months in Drancy! Five months at sea, which was worst of all, and then Sandbostel to watch the dying, the dead, the arrogance and the cruelty of our keepers —barracks alive with bugs. Typhus broke out in the Russian section where the French kitchens were. We collected our soap in the Russian sector and the British walked through this sector daily to work near the Russians digging peat. We arrived at Milag Nord, 20 km away, in early 1942. This was a recognised camp.
In 1965, Mr. Roberts saw his then Member of Parliament, Mr. Richard Bingham, the then Member for Garston, who received a reply from the then Foreign Office Minister, Walter Padley, who repeated that Drancy was not a concentration camp. He said:
the question of compensation for internment could be raised only in the context of an eventual Peace Treaty with a united Germany.
Reunification in 1990 and the continued failure to address their burning sense of grievance brought Mr. Roberts, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Roscoe to see me last summer. In several exchanges of letters since then, Ministers have doggedly refused to reopen the files or to agree to an independent arbiter to examine the case. Therefore, I tabled a series of questions and sought leave to raise them here tonight.
Initially, Ministers refused to accept that Drancy had ever been a concentration camp, saying that it was just a transit camp. It is worth recalling that Belsen was simply described as an infirmary. In setting out tonight a personal and full account of what Mr. Roberts and others experienced at Drancy, I hope that it will lay to rest once and for all the idea that Drancy was anything other than the worst kind of camp that the SS ran.
I wrote to the German Government and received a very interesting reply. Despite all that the British Government had said in maintaining that Drancy was not at any time a concentration camp, in reply to me on 13 August 1992, Helmut Wegner, the Minister Plenipotentiary at the German embassy in London, wrote to me stating that his Government confirmed that in the "Bundegesetzblatt"— the official gazette—Drancy is listed in the published list of concentration camps. The Israeli Government, at the Yad Yashem memorial in Jerusalem, which I visited at the end of last year—the memorial to holocaust victims—also list

Drancy as a concentration camp. In 1952, President de Gaulle unveiled a plaque commemorating the victims of the Drancy concentration camp.
The Foreign Office, in disputing the classification of Drancy, also says that it consulted the Weiner office library which specialises in the subject of the holocaust and that it claimed that the Weiner library did not classify Drancy as a concentration camp. However, I contacted the library and it denied that. It said that it most certainly did classify it as a concentration camp. Her Majesty's Government alone have never accepted the classification Of Drancy as a concentration camp.
By the autumn of last year, the line of argument had begun to change, with Ministers stating that, even if Drancy had been a camp, my constituents had been there several weeks too early. Although that might be the case with Mr. Roberts and with Mr. Thomas, it certainly does not appear to be the case with Mr. Roscoe, who was detained there at a later period. By the winter, in a letter of 22 December last, the Minister of State was adamant that
severe hardship did not ipso facto qualify. The only tribunal competent to examine such claims was set up between 1964–66, the one which considered Mr. Roberts' case. It no longer exists; the lists are closed, the money is gone. Cases cannot be re-considered, nor new cases admitted at this late stage.
But surely it is a matter not of late stages but of honour. If there has been an injustice, Ministers have a duty to reconsider that matter at whatever stage it may come. Whatever Drancy's status, the guidance notes issued to claimants said that those detained in concentration camps
or in any institution where the conditions were comparable with those in a concentration camp
would qualify.
All the theological arguments about how many angels there might be on the top of a pin are pretty irrelevant when it comes to whether Drancy was a concentration camp during the period when my constituents were there, even though the accounts that I have given the House tonight and the accounts that I have sent to Ministers certainly seem to dispute the advice that Ministers now give and that their predecessors gave. They were victims of Nazi persecution and they clearly languished in the most terrible conditions imaginable.
Let me conclude by reminding the House of precisely what happened to those men. Two of them were in their teens and one was in his early 20s when they were taken to Drancy. Mr. Roberts and Mr. Thomas were blown out of the sea in July 1940. They were kept for five months, confined below decks on a German raider ship and on a prison ship, the Rio Grande. They were never allowed on deck. They were kept virtually naked. Their bodies were covererd in sores as they suffered acute hardship and privation. They were then taken in cattle trucks to Drancy with Jewish prisoners destined for the gas chambers. They were given little food, water was polluted, work was arduous and beatings of prisoners were regular. They were then moved to Sandbostel in Germany, where the daily ration of one small loaf was shared between six men and where the death rate was exceptionally high—again, equally terrible conditions.
It is worth drawing to the attention of the Minister of State an obituary of Cary Younghusband in The Daily Telegraph on 5 December 1992. The obituary stated that he


died aged 68, won a Military Cross near the notorious Nazi concentration camp of Sandbostel in April 1945. Although the camp guards had fled, experienced and fanatical units of the Waffen SS were deployed in strength along the bank of the River Oster, barring the way with infantry and anti-tank guns.
Again, that demonstrates that, at every stage of their captivity, those men suffered the most terrible gruelling conditions imaginable.
Only in 1942, when they were taken to Meelag Nord, were they given the full protection of the Geneva convention, although, even here, the prisoners went through the terrifying ordeal of being rounded up and threatened with execution. In those far off days, it is easy to say that the events were all too long ago. That does not remove our responsibility to recognise the suffering and sacrifice of men who served their country with bravery and distinction.
The Minister has the power to appoint a judge to re-examine such cases. I hope that the Minister will use that power shortly before commemorating the contribu-tion which merchant seamen made to the battle of the Atlantic. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has drawn my attention to the fact that the matter was raised in the House on 5 February 1968. The Sachsenhausen case having been referred to the ombudsman after the then Foreign Secretary, George Brown, refused a similar case, the ombudsman found in favour of those claimants.
If the Minister feels unable at least to appoint an independent arbiter to re-examine the injustice which these men believe they have endured and suffered, I intend to refer the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for investigation.

Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), first, on his good fortune in having this debate tonight, secondly—we do not always agree on everything —on the diligence with which he has pursued this issue for longer than I have and, thirdly, on the way in which he has presented the case to the House and to the Minister.
I came to the issue somewhat later than the hon. Member for Mossley Hill when my constituent, Mr. Cruces, came to see me in the middle of November 1992. Originally, I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for Defence which wound up on the desk of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). I quote briefly from the letter, dated 17 November 1992:
Mr. Cruces served as a merchant seaman during World War II and was a prisoner of war from 7th July 1940 to May 1945, following the sinking of his vessel, the S.S. Delambre. He was originally imprisoned at a concentration camp at Drancy in France and later at Stalag XB.
During this period, Mr. Cruces was forced to carry out 'slave labour', suffered continual privations, hardship, cruelty and illness, including, at one stage, typhoid. At his liberation in 1945, he weighed only six stone in weight and it was only after 12 months of recuperation that his health was sufficiently restored to enable him to return to his occupation.
The letter then describes the Granada television programme to which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred and the issue of the £1 million fund which was set up in 1964.
When Mr. Cruces came to see me he recalled the events of all those years ago with a great deal of strain and upset. It was clear to me that it was not an ordinary gripe against

the Government; it was a deeply held feeling, not that he wanted some money out of it but that his experience and that of his comrades had not been properly recognised.
We should be aware that the issue for those people is not money, although money will possibly be the reflection of how society cares about what happened to them. It is the emotional and physical stress that Mr. Cruces went through. Even to this day he finds it difficult to describe exactly what happened to him and the results of it. We should never underestimate the effect which such events have on people like Mr. Cruces and the debt that we all owe them. I shall refer to that later.
The Minister replied to me in a letter dated 9 December. He said:
The Government, however, pressed the German Government to compensate victims of Nazi persecution who had been held in concentration camps. In 1964 the two governments agreed that Germany would pay Britain a £1 million fund, which was disbursed to those who were held in a concentration camp or 'comparable place for the purpose of inflicting deliberate and organised suffering torture and death in furtherance of Nazi ideology'. The qualifying criteria were tightly drawn to ensure maximum benefit would be paid to those who suffered most. Many prisoners who were held in unpleasant or harsh conditions in detention camps, including Drancy, were turned down when cases were considered.
My argument is that, on the basis of the information available, that paragraph of the Minister's letter is manifestly an unfair reflection of what went on in that camp during that period. I shall quote two sources, one of which is the result of work carried out by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill.
Mr. Roberts, to whom the hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred, is quoted heavily in an article which appeared last year in the Liverpool Daily Post. It said:
There, Mr. Roberts was interned under the regime of the fanatical Nazi guards for more than two years, before being transferred to another camp where—for the first time—he was afforded the protection of the Geneva Convention. At Drancy, prisoners were given little food and had to work long hours to avoid beatings from guards.
So clearly that was the experience which Mr. Roberts and my constituent suffered.
Yet as recently as August 1992, the Minister of State, Foreign Office said in a letter to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill:
All concur that Drancy was not a recognised concentration camp during the Second World War, but an assembly/transit camp whence prisoners were transferred to work and concentration camps.
He went on to cite the sources which supported those findings. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has demonstrated adequately that, whatever definition is used, the conditions which prevailed at Drancy were almost entirely comparable with those at a concentration camp.
A book has been written by Jeremy Josephs about the period entitled, "Swastika over Paris. The Fate of the French Jews". It describes not the fate of prisoners of war, but the conditions at Drancy. Chapter 8 is headed "Drancy: The Anteroom of Death". It opens:
For many the internment camp of Drancy was not the anteroom of death but the very room of death itself … The diet was a soup composed of cabbage supplied by the local markets, with virtually no nutritional value. Internees were soon afflicted with lice and skin disease. Inside, vermin roamed freely. At night, screams could be heard reverberating around the walls of the buildings. Dysentery and diarrhoea were common. Many of the more fragile internees began to succumb to the strain.
It goes on to quote from a letter.
On page 105 the book says:


By July 2, 1943 Brunner was ready to take control of Drancy. On that day the SS man with the perpetual half-smile arrived armed with a small team of four permanent assistants, fellow Austrians belonging to the Sicherheitsdienst, the Security Service. Together they would introduce an unprecedented reign of terror and tyranny, making life at the camp still more intolerable. Brunner had already decided that to carry out Eichmann's brief properly, full and effective personal control of Drancy was essential. The entire French administration was relieved of its functions. Only the gendarmerie were accorded continued trust in being allowed to guard the exterior of the camp and to retain the right to escort deportees to the trains.
That was written about the fate of the French Jews who were detained in Drancy. Our constituents found themselves in the same circumstances during that period.
Earlier tonight I came across the section of Hansard of 9 June 1964 that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill quoted.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Could the hon. Member kindly remind me of the dates his constituent was at Drancy?

Mr. Howarth: I shall do so before I conclude.
From my reading of columns 243 and 244 of Hansard on 9 June 1964, it is clear that the House intended on that occasion for there to be some flexibility and that if issues were not resolved by the tribunal which was set up there would be future opportunities to deal with them. Sadly, many years later, the commitments made then still need to be honoured by the House, and more specifically by the Government.
The Minister asked me to remind him of the dates. Mr. Cruces was a prisoner of war from the day his vessel was sunk on 7 July 1940 until May 1945. For much of that time he was in Drancy, although I am not clear about the exact dates. The only payment that he received was £340 from the shipping line, which was subject to income tax.
The noble Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, my predecessor, was one of the contributors to the debate in 1964. It seems to me that obligations arise from that discussion which ought now to be honoured. Until the recent Granada television programme, Mr. Cruces was unaware that he may well have been eligible for some compensation. However that was advertised, the message clearly did not reach Mr. Cruces. Unlike Mr. Roberts, he did not even make an application. I know that the fund is closed, but frankly that raises issues which ought to concern the House.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned an important question. When the House debated the matter, a clear undertaking was given that, even if the funds were inadequate, that would not debar people from applying subsequently. There are recorded cases of people being able to apply even after the funds were closed, and of Ministers being prepared to reply compassionately in those exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Member for strengthening my argument. I do not want to detain the House. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has said much of what needs to be said and I have added briefly to his remarks on behalf of my constituent.
I did some brief mathematics on the Minister's age before the debate. He, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill

and I were either not yet born or very young when the events that we have described occurred, but that should not lessen our commitment. We are able to stand in this House, in a free and democratic society, because people like my constituent, the constituents of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and others made sacrifices as merchant seamen or members of the armed services. We still owe them a debt of honour, which has certainly not been satisfied in the cases that we have described.
I give the Minister notice that if he cannot satisfy us in our belief that justice has not been done, I shall support the hon. Member for Mossley Hill in raising the matter with the Parliamentary Commissioner. The cases should be dealt with honourably and in a way that will make those people feel that their sacrifices have finally been recognised by this country. That is long overdue—in some cases, it may be too late—but compensation is not the important thing for the people who have survived, although it may help them in their old age: what is important is recognition of what they sacrificed for this country, at a time when such sacrifices were absolutely essential.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I congratulate the hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on the way in which they have raised this important and delicate matter. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill and I have corresponded and spoken about it, and I shall try to sketch the historical background to the case. The hon. Member referred to the bloody-mindedness and persistence of hon. Members, and that is a quality that all hon. Members should be willing to show on behalf of their constituents when they think that that is right.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North was right to remind the House that we are able to debate such matters in the House thanks to the sacrifices made by the men and women in our armed services, the Merchant Navy and civilians during the second world war.
I should like to outline the historical background to these cases. The story begins with the last war, in which many millions of British and allied soldiers, sailors and airmen fought not only to relax but eventually to break the grip of Hitler's tyranny over western Europe. I am a little older than the two hon. Members who have spoken and at least I have a dim memory of the war. I agree with them that it is important that none of us should forget the bravery and distinction of our merchant fleet and our merchant seamen. A number of them, as serving officers, and indeed other men in the three armed services, were captured.
Hundreds of thousands of British prisoners were held by the Germans during the war. Their experiences varied widely. Most prisoners of war were treated correctly according to the Geneva convention, although their detention was unpleasant and painful, even for those who were treated within the terms of that convention. Some were treated with varying degrees of brutality, in some cases amounting to war crimes. A few suffered truly horrifying abuses in the concentration camps.
In seeking to categorise the suffering of the many hundreds of thousands who were held during the war, I am not seeking to minimise in any way the suffering even of those who came within the lowest category of pain. The


hon. Member for Knowsley, North has described to the House how, even after many years, his constituent finds it difficult even to address this issue.I hope that the House will not feel that in making such categories I am seeking to minimise the suffering of the constituents of whom the hon. Members have spoken.
Once our people had returned after the war, we had to decide in the United Kingdom how to respond to their experiences. As a starting point, prisoners were not entitled to any special compensation—though their pay continued—for being locked up or, within limits, put to work. Such treatment was correct under the Geneva convention. Prisoners who suffered disability, however, because of their treatment became eligible for disability pensions. Those who alleged mistreatment had their allegations investigated and if they could be made to stick, the perpetrators were tried as war criminals before the allied war crimes courts, but no compensation was paid.
The Government, however, pressed the German Government to compensate British victims of Nazi persecution, recognising that foreign nationals who had suffered the horrors of detention in places like Dachau, Belsen and Ravensbruck—to mention a few—should receive no less special consideration than Germans themselves. For German citizens, such provision had been embodied in German law from an early stage under allied supervision; and it seemed to us unjustly discriminatory that it should remain exclusively so. That had never been part of the original allied intention. In the end, in 1964, and after many years of negotiation, the two Governments were able to agree that Federal Germany should pay the sum of £1 million in full and final settlement of the claims of United Kingdom citizens in that category. Similar agreements were reached with all German-occupied countries of western Europe at about that time. The British Government had discretion in deciding how the money should be distributed and, within the prescribed limits of the agreement, in setting the governing criteria. The Foreign Office was charged with responsibility for administering the fund and bringing it to public attention.
As the agreement offered the only opportunity to obtain compensation for those who deserved it, the Government of the day did everything that they could to encourage applications. I say that as I believe that the constituents of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and two constituents of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill did not make applications during that period. It is important to set out the efforts that the Government of the day took.
The agreement was given wide publicity. A one-year period for the registration of claims–24 July 1964 to 31 July 1965—was announced by notices in all the national and leading provincial newspapers. Publicity was also given by many specialised journals and interested organisations. Circulars were sent to all Foreign Office, Commonwealth Relations Office and colonial posts overseas requesting them to obtain publicity. In addition, application forms were sent direct to all who had communicated with the Foreign Office. Later, reminders were sent to individuals and in February 1965 further notices were inserted in the press. There were frequent advertisements on radio and television. Posters were displayed at all 2,700 post offices, Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance offices and in all local government offices down to rural councils. Later still, again to try to make sure that everyone who might have a claim was given

an opportunity to lodge one, the registration period was extended to February 1966 and there was yet more publicity.

Mr. George Howarth: I hope that the Minister will accept that a central part of our case is that, at that time, Drancy would not have been considered eligible for payment out of that fund. A strong part of our case is that it has since come to light that Drancy was in exactly the same category as places that were, at the time, considered appropriate.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall come to the question whether Drancy is or is not—was or was not—a concentration camp—

Mr. Howarth: It will have a bearing on the case.

Mr. Garel-Jones: It might have a bearing on it—I shall come to that later. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that one constituent of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill applied in the due period.
In the end the lists closed and the tribunal formed to distribute the funds got down to work. It set very tightly drawn criteria to ensure that those who suffered most would get the maximum benefit. I remind the House that the total sum negotiated with Federal Germany was £1 million. Because of our wish to ensure that the money was distributed in the fairest possible way, the criteria were tightly drawn so that those who had suffered most would receive the most compensation.
To quote from the criteria applied by the tribunal, in order to qualify a claimant had to have been incarcerated in a concentration camp or
comparable place for the purpose of inflicting deliberate and organised suffering, torture and death in furtherance of Nazi ideology".
It was found that 1,015 claimants met this criteria and their claims succeeded; 3,046 other claims were turned down on various grounds, including the grounds that their place of imprisonment had not been a concentration camp or a "comparable place" meeting the rest of the terms that I quoted a moment ago. The tribunal decided that the camp at Drancy did not fit this criteria.
So if Drancy was not a concentration camp, what was it? As far as we can judge now, reading the accounts and history published since the war, Drancy was an unpleasant place to be. We have heard graphic accounts of that this evening. People were taken to Drancy after their capture, held for varying periods and shipped off to other camps, mostly German concentration camps. Few returned, but so far as we can tell, Drancy was a transit camp. Conditions were harsh, but there were no gas chambers and inmates were not worked to death as forced labour. Some 70,000 detainees passed through the camp in the three years between August 1941 and 1944. Of these, all but a few thousand were Jews. Most were French, but more than 20,000 were of other nationalities, mainly Polish. Their destination was usually the same—Auschwitz.
Drancy was for most of the time under French administrative authority, but for a period it was not, at least for practical purposes. That was when the notorious Alois Brunner took over as the SS camp commandant from mid-1943 to mid-1944, when the camp was liberated. He dismissed the French guards and ran the camp with the help of a handful of SS officers. Brunner's aim was to


expedite the Auschwitz transports. Conditions deteriorate-ed during this period. They may even have been comparable to those in a concentration camp. But that is not at issue here.
I should like to make this quite clear. In delivering the judgment on Drancy, to which I earlier referred, the tribunal had before it not the history of Drancy to consider, but a case—that of Mr. Roberts—of detention there in early 1941. That was over two years before the advent of Brunner, for instance; and the camp was then very different from what it later became. Drancy served as a place of ad hoc internment, from late 1940 to the summer of 1941, of mainly alien nationals, including for a few months British civilian internees, under the protective aegis of the Geneva conventions.
I should like to say a brief word about the definition of a concentration camp. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill made the perfectly fair point that for the German Government, probably for most Jewish organisations and according to the camp's commemorative plaque, Drancy is reckoned to have been a concentration camp from its date of official origin. The leading international authority, however, the international tracing service run by the Red Cross, does not include Drancy as a recognised concentration camp, and that is generally thought to be a good example to follow.
The possible explanation of Germany's different definition of a concentration camp is that detention in a concentration camp has never been a matter of legal significance in Germany. In the United Kingdom, it automatically triggered a valid claim to compensation, which is why the definition has a legal significance in the United Kingdom that it does not have in Germany. It is perfectly understandable that any camp in Federal Germany where harsh treatment had been meted out might, in a looser sense, be referred to as a concentration camp. Although some authorities say that Drancy later became a concentration camp when the notorious SS officer took over, I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill is alone in claiming that it was a concentration camp when it was used for the detention of our merchant seamen in early 1941.

Mr. Alton: I think that the Minister is falling into the trap of semantics. He will accept, as I suggested earlier, that the German Government have a different definition of a concentration camp from that which the Government decided on. That was not the issue that determined whether compensation would be payable. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the 1968 decision, which was reached long after the tribunal had been closed, when the Parliamentary Commissioner was called in to the Session house and, despite the views of Ministers, found in favour of claimants. Mr. George Brown said:
However, all the Ministers who have looked at this quite separately have come to one conclusion and the Parliamentary Commissioner has come to another."—Official Report, 5 February 1968; Vol. 758, c.115]
The same information that was given to Ministers for tonight's debate was being given to the Ministers who replied in 1968, when the Parliamentary Commissioner found in favour of claimants.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I accept, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman does too, that the definition of a concentration

camp is not a materially central issue. Nevertheless, we, unlike Germany, have been careful to define a concentration camp because it has a legal implication here. It is probably fair to say that in Federal Germany it was able to place a looser meaning on the word because it had no legal significance. In the United Kingdom, because it triggered automatic compensation, it was important to define a concentration camp. By that definition, we would not agree that Drancy was a concentration camp.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful for that clarification because it is right that hon. Members should get this point right in their minds before proceeding. In a letter dated 4 June, the Minister told me that Drancy "was not"—and "not" was underlined—"a concentration camp". He accepted tonight that, even by his definition, later on in the life of that camp —when at least we know that Mr. Roscoe, for example, was still detained, and weeks after other prisoners were removed—the definition changed. Is he not now at least accepting that?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened because I have obviously not been clear enough. We do not accept that Drancy was a concentration camp—full stop. We accept that, with the arrival of SS officer Brunner, conditions at Drancy deteriorated, but, under the legal definition that we apply in the United Kingdom, we do not accept that Drancy was a concentration camp. However, the hon. Gentleman has accepted that that is not the central issue. I would not wish the definition to be misunderstod, either by the House or by the hon. Gentleman's constituents, or for it to be felt that we were being cheeseparing. We have a definition because it automatically triggers compensation. Therefore, it is important that it is not a loose and general description, but one that is closely defined.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the ex gratia payment made by Her Majesty's Government to a number of RAF service men held at Sachsenhausen, following a vigorous campaign by the late Airey Neave. There were special considerations in that case, not least that those service men were held at a concentration camp but happened to have been held, for some reason about which I am not advised, just outside the camp perimeter. In that case, the Government made a judgment, and an ex gratia payment was made.
The hon. Members for Mossley Hill and for Knowsley, North have, in the proper traditions of the House, vented the feeling of—abandonment was what I sensed from what they were saying—their constituents. Let me make it clear that I doubt whether any hon. Member would not wish to place on record the debt that we all owe to a group of people who have sometimes been ignored—the Merchant Navy and merchant seamen—and the sacrifices and sufferings that they made for us during the second world war.
I have tried to explain to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, and I have repeated it again tonight, that, in spite of our respect for their contributions to the war effort and the sympathy that we feel for the hardships that they endured, there is no reason to believe that they were treated with injustice by the British Government. The scheme under which the money was distributed closed in 1966. It is now nearly 30 years after the decision in question and some 50 years after the events. I am sorry not to be able to give hon. Members a more forthcoming reply. It is not easy to reject


such a strongly felt claim by three constituents who represent a group to which, as hon. Members have reminded us, we all owe a great debt. I am afraid I have to say that it is not now possible for new claims to be raised or, where necessary, for old claims to be considered.
Question put and agreed to
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Ten o'clock.